4.6 Article

Correspondence between first-trimester fasting glycaemia, and oral glucose tolerance test in gestational diabetes diagnosis

期刊

DIABETES & METABOLISM
卷 38, 期 5, 页码 458-461

出版社

MASSON EDITEUR
DOI: 10.1016/j.diabet.2012.03.006

关键词

Gestational diabetes; First-trimester fasting glycaemia; Diagnostic criteria; OGTT; IADPSG Consensus Panel

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim. - To evaluate the correspondence between first-trimester fasting glycaemia and the results of the OGTT in diagnosing gestational diabetes (GDM). Methods. - The medical records of all consecutive women who had undergone a diagnostic OGTT, performed according to the IADPSG, during the past year were retrospectively reviewed. All first-trimester fasting glucose values greater or equal to 5.1 mmol/L (92 mg/dL), recommended as a diagnostic value, were also verified for each patient in this cohort. Moreover, a ROC curve and a multiple logistic-regression model were constructed to calculate the predictive capability of this cut-off value in diagnosing GDM. Results. - In our population of 738 eligible pregnant women, an 11.9% prevalence of GDM was revealed by OGTT. However, when the first-trimester fasting glucose value for each patient was retrospectively considered, there were a further 29 patients who should have been diagnosed as GDM cases (glycaemia >= 5.1 mmol/L), although their OGTT was normal. Yet, when the value of fasting glucose was considered not diagnostic, but only predictive, an AUC of 0.614 (95% CI: 0.544-0.684) and an aOR of 7.1 (95% CI: 3.8-13.1) was obtained in these patients compared with the reference group (fasting glucose <5.1 mmol/L). Conclusion. - There was no complete correspondence in diagnosing GDM between the first-trimester fasting glucose value and the results of a 2-h 75-g OGTT performed early in the third trimester. However, albeit not diagnostic, a fasting glucose value greater or equal to 5.1 mmol/L may be considered a highly predictive risk factor for GDM. (C) 2012 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据