Dataset Information

Carpenter-Coustan Compared With National Diabetes Data Group Criteria for Diagnosing Gestational Diabetes.

ABSTRACT: Use of Carpenter-Coustan compared with National Diabetes Data Group criteria increases the number of women diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) by 30-50%, but whether treatment of this milder GDM reduces adverse outcomes is unknown. We explored the effects of the diagnostic criteria used on the benefits of GDM treatment.This was a secondary analysis of a randomized trial for treatment of mild GDM diagnosed using Carpenter-Coustan criteria. We evaluated the effect of treatment within two mutually exclusive diagnostic groups: 1) women who met the stricter National Diabetes Data Group as well as Carpenter-Coustan criteria (National Diabetes Data Group), and 2) those diagnosed by Carpenter-Coustan but not meeting National Diabetes Data Group criteria (Carpenter-Coustan only). Maternal outcomes examined were pregnancy-induced hypertension, shoulder dystocia, maternal weight gain, and cesarean delivery. Neonatal outcomes were large for gestational age, macrosomia (greater than 4,000 g), fat mass, small for gestational age, and a composite outcome of perinatal death, birth injury, hypoglycemia, hyperbilirubinemia, and hyperinsulinemia. Analysis of variance or the Breslow-Day test, as appropriate, was used to test for the interaction between diagnostic criteria and GDM treatment on the outcomes of interest.Of 958 patients, 560 (58.5%) met National Diabetes Data Group criteria and 398 (41.5%) met Carpenter-Coustan only. Compared with untreated women, the direction of treatment effect did not differ by diagnostic criteria used and was consistent with the original trial. The P value for interaction between diagnostic criteria and treatment status was not significant for any outcome.The overall beneficial treatment effect on pregnancy-induced hypertension, shoulder dystocia, cesarean delivery, and macrosomia was seen in patients diagnosed by the higher National Diabetes Data Group and by the lower thresholds of the Carpenter-Coustan criteria.

SUBMITTER: Harper LM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4840065 | biostudies-literature | 2016 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Carpenter-Coustan Compared With National Diabetes Data Group Criteria for Diagnosing Gestational Diabetes.

Harper Lorie M LM Mele Lisa L Landon Mark B MB Carpenter Marshall W MW Ramin Susan M SM Reddy Uma M UM Casey Brian B Wapner Ronald J RJ Varner Michael W MW Thorp John M JM Sciscione Anthony A Catalano Patrick P Harper Margaret M Saade George G Caritis Steve N SN Sorokin Yoram Y Peaceman Alan M AM Tolosa Jorge E JE

Obstetrics and gynecology 20160501 5

<h4>Objective</h4>Use of Carpenter-Coustan compared with National Diabetes Data Group criteria increases the number of women diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) by 30-50%, but whether treatment of this milder GDM reduces adverse outcomes is unknown. We explored the effects of the diagnostic criteria used on the benefits of GDM treatment.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a secondary analysis of a randomized trial for treatment of mild GDM diagnosed using Carpenter-Coustan criteria. We evalu ...[more]

PMID: 27054932

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:In response to concerns that the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) criteria labeled too many women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) without evidence of clinical or economic benefit, NICE recommended a change in diagnostic criteria in 2015. AIM:To compare diabetes associated maternal and neonatal complications in pregnancies complicated by GDM diagnosed using IADPSG criteria only, to those with GDM diagnosed using both IADPSG and NICE 2015 criteria. GDM screening was risk factor based. METHODS:This was a secondary analysis of a trial of women with GDM diagnosed by the IADPSG criteria (fasting blood glucose (BG) ? 5.1 mmol/L, 1 h ? 10.0 mmol/L and 2 h ? 8.5 mmol/L). Outcomes were compared for two groups: NICE + IADPSG defined as those with GDM diagnosed by both the NICE 2015 and IADPSG criteria (fasting BG ? 5.6 mmol/L, 2 h ? 8.5 mmol/L); and IADPSG-ONLY (fasting BG 5.1 mmol/L to 5.5 mmol/L, and/or 1-hour ?10.0 mmol/L, and 2 h ? 8.5 mmol/L). We were not able to obtain data for women with a 2-h value between BG 7.8?8.4 mmol/L (i.e., NICE-ONLY; NICE 2015 positive and IADPSG negative). All women were treated for GDM using targets of fasting BG < 5.3 mmol/L and 1-h post prandial BG < 7.8 mmol/L respectively. RESULTS:Of 159 women, 65 (40.9%) were NICE + IADPSG and 94 (59.1%) IADPSG-ONLY. Hypoglycaemic medication use was similar in both groups: 52.3% NICE + IADPSG, 46.8% IADPSG-ONLY, OR 1.0 (0.5?1.9). The IADPSG-ONLY group delivered later than the NICE + IADPSG group; 39.0 weeks (sd 1.4) compared to 38.2 weeks (sd 2.5), p value 0.02. Fewer caesarean sections occurred in IADPSG-ONLY group 30.9% vs. 52.3%, OR 0.4 (0.2?0.9). Birthweight, large for gestational age, and other neonatal complications were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS:Gestational diabetes-associated perinatal complications were similar in both groups. The IADPSG criteria detect women with evidence of ongoing hyperglycaemia who may benefit from treatment during pregnancy.

Project description:ImportanceApproximately 60% of women develop a uterine niche after a cesarean delivery (CD). A niche is associated with various gynecological symptoms including abnormal uterine bleeding, pain, and infertility, but there is little consensus in the literature on the distinction between the sonographic finding of a niche and the constellation of associated symptoms.ObjectiveTo achieve consensus on defining the clinical condition that constitutes a symptomatic uterine niche and agree upon diagnostic criteria and uniform nomenclature for this condition.Design, setting, and participantsA consensus based modified electronic Delphi (eDelphi) study, with a predefined Rate of Agreement (RoA) of 70% or higher. Experts were selected according to their expertise with niche-related consultations, publications, and participation in expert groups and received online questionnaires between November 2021 and May 2022.Main outcomes and measuresDefinition, nomenclature, symptoms, conditions to exclude, and diagnostic criteria of an illness caused by a symptomatic uterine niche.ResultsIn total, 31 of the 60 invited experts (51.7%) participated, of whom the majority worked in university-affiliated hospitals (28 of 31 [90.3%]), specialized in benign gynecology (20 of 31 [64.5%]), and worked in Europe (24 of 31 [77.4%]). Three rounds were required to achieve consensus on all items. All participants underlined the relevance of a new term for a condition caused by a symptomatic niche and its differentiation from a sonographic finding only. Experts agreed to name this condition cesarean scar disorder, defined as a uterine niche in combination with at least 1 primary or 2 secondary symptoms (RoA, 77.8%). Defined primary symptoms were postmenstrual spotting, pain during uterine bleeding, technical issues with catheter insertion during embryo transfer, and secondary unexplained infertility combined with intrauterine fluid. Secondary symptoms were dyspareunia, abnormal vaginal discharge, chronic pelvic pain, avoiding sexual intercourse, odor associated with abnormal blood loss, secondary unexplained infertility, secondary infertility despite assisted reproductive technology, negative self-image, and discomfort during participation in leisure activities. Consensus was also achieved on certain criteria that should be met and conditions that should be excluded before making the diagnosis.Conclusions and relevanceIn this modified Delphi study, a panel of 31 international niche experts reached consensus for the constellation of symptoms secondary to a uterine niche and named it cesarean scar disorder.

Project description:Background:The absence of universal gold standards for screening of gestational diabetes (GDM) has led to heterogeneity in the identification of GDM, thereby impacting the accurate estimation of the prevalence of GDM. We aimed to evaluate the effect of different diagnostic criteria for GDM on its prevalence among general populations of pregnant women worldwide, and also to investigate the prevalence of GDM based on various geographic regions. Methods:A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus and Google-scholar databases for retrieving articles in English investigating the prevalence of GDM. All populations were classified to seven groups based-on their diagnostic criteria for GDM. Heterogeneous and non-heterogeneous results were analyzed using the fixed effect and random-effects inverse variance model for calculating the pooled effect. Publication bias was assessed by Begg's test. The Meta-prop method was used for the pooled estimation of the prevalence of GDM. Meta-regression was conducted to explore the association between prevalence of GDM and its diagnostic criteria. Modified Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for nonrandomized studies was used for quality assessment of the studies included; the ROBINS and the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias assessment tools were used to evaluate the risk of bias. Results:We used data from 51 population-based studies, i.e. a study population of 5,349,476 pregnant women. Worldwide, the pooled overall-prevalence of GDM, regardless of type of screening threshold categories was 4.4%, (95% CI 4.3-4.4%). The pooled overall prevalence of GDM in the diagnostic threshold used in IADPSG criteria was 10.6% (95% CI 10.5-10.6%), which was the highest pooled prevalence of GDM among studies included. Meta-regression showed that the prevalence of GDM among studies that used the IADPSG criteria was significantly higher (6-11 fold) than other subgroups. The highest and lowest prevalence of GDM, regardless of screening criteria were reported in East-Asia and Australia (Pooled-P?=?11.4%, 95% CI 11.1-11.7%) and (Pooled-P?=?3.6%, 95% CI 3.6-3.7%), respectively. Conclusion:Over the past quarter century, the diagnosis of gestational diabetes has been changed several times; along with worldwide increasing trend of obesity and diabetes, reducing the threshold of GDM is associated with a significant increase in the incidence of GDM. The harm and benefit of reducing the threshold of diagnostic criteria on pregnancy outcomes, women's psychological aspects, and health costs should be evaluated precisely.

Project description:ImportanceChronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is characterised by a constellation of symptoms diagnosed with a number of different polythetic criteria. Heterogeneity across these diagnostic criteria is likely to be confounding research into the as-yet-unknown pathophysiology underlying this stigmatised and debilitating condition and may diagnose a disease spectrum with significant implications for clinical management. No studies to date have objectively investigated this possibility using a validated measure of CFS symptoms-the DePaul Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ).ObjectiveTo examine whether current CFS diagnostic criteria are identifying different disease phenotypes using the DSQ.DesignCase control study.SettingClinical Research Facility of the Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.Participants49 CFS subjects and ten matched, sedentary community controls, excluded for co-morbid depression.Main outcomes and measuresSelf-reported autonomic and cognitive features were assessed with the Composite Autonomic Symptom Score (COMPASS) and Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (COGFAIL) respectively. Objective autonomic cardiovascular parameters were examined using the Task Force® Monitor and a battery of neuropsychological tests administered for objective cognitive assessment.ResultsSelf-reported autonomic and cognitive symptoms were significantly greater in CFS subjects compared to controls. There were no statistically significant differences in objective autonomic measures between CFS and controls. There were clinically significant differences between DSQ subgroups on objective autonomic testing. Visuospatial memory, verbal memory and psychomotor speed were significantly different between DSQ subgroups.Conclusions and relevanceThe finding of no significant differences in objective autonomic testing between CFS and control subjects may reflect the inclusion of sedentary controls or exclusion for co-morbid depression. Consistent exclusion criteria would enable better delineation of these two conditions and their presenting symptoms. Findings across CFS subgroups suggest subjects have a different disease burden on subjective and objective measures of function, autonomic parameters and cognitive impairment when categorised using the DSQ. Different CFS criteria may at best be diagnosing a spectrum of disease severities and at worst different CFS phenotypes or even different diseases. This complicates research and disease management and may contribute to the significant stigma associated with the condition.

Dataset Information

Carpenter-Coustan Compared With National Diabetes Data Group Criteria for Diagnosing Gestational Diabetes.

Publications

Carpenter-Coustan Compared With National Diabetes Data Group Criteria for Diagnosing Gestational Diabetes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets