Dataset Information

Surprisingly low compliance to local guidelines for risk factor based screening for gestational diabetes mellitus - A population-based study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Screening for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is routine during pregnancy in many countries in the world. The screening programs are either based on general screening offered to all pregnant women or risk factor based screening stipulated in local clinical guidelines. The aims of this study were to investigate: 1) the compliance with local guidelines of screening for GDM and 2) the outcomes of pregnancy and birth in relation to risk factors of GDM and whether or not exposed to oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). METHODS: This study design was a population-based retrospective cross-sectional study of 822 women. A combination of questionnaire data and data collected from medical records was applied. Compliance to the local guidelines of risk factor based screening for GDM was examined and a comparison of outcomes of pregnancy and delivery in relation to risk factor groups for GDM was performed. RESULTS: Of the 822 participants, 257 (31.3%) women fulfilled at least one criterion for being exposed to screening for GDM according to the local clinical guidelines. However, only 79 (30.7%) of these women were actually exposed to OGTT and of those correctly exposed for screening, seven women were diagnosed with GDM. Women developing risk factors for GDM during pregnancy had a substantially increased risk of giving birth to an infant with macrosomia. CONCLUSION: Surprisingly low compliance with the local clinical guidelines for screening for GDM during pregnancy was found. Furthermore, the prevalence of the risk factors of GDM in our study was almost doubled compared to previous Swedish studies. Pregnant women developing risk factors of GDM during pregnancy were found to be at substantially increased risk of giving birth to an infant with macrosomia. There is a need of actions improving compliance to the local guidelines.

SUBMITTER: Persson M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2784436 | biostudies-other | 2009

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Surprisingly low compliance to local guidelines for risk factor based screening for gestational diabetes mellitus - A population-based study.

Persson Margareta M Winkvist Anna A Mogren Ingrid I

BMC pregnancy and childbirth 20091116

<h4>Background</h4>Screening for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is routine during pregnancy in many countries in the world. The screening programs are either based on general screening offered to all pregnant women or risk factor based screening stipulated in local clinical guidelines. The aims of this study were to investigate: 1) the compliance with local guidelines of screening for GDM and 2) the outcomes of pregnancy and birth in relation to risk factors of GDM and whether or not expose ...[more]

PMID: 19917091

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Guidelines for screening and diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) have been updated in the past several years, and various inconsistencies exist across these guidelines. Moreover, the quality of these updated guidelines has not been clarified. We thus conducted this systematic review to evaluate the relationship between the quality and detailed recommendations of these guidelines. DATA SOURCES:The Guidelines International Network Library, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) database, the Medline database, the Embase and the National Guidelines Clearinghouse were searched for guidelines containing recommendations on screening and diagnosis strategies for GDM between 2009 and November 2018. METHODS:Guidelines included a target group of women with GDM, and contained recommendations for screening and diagnostic strategies for GDM were included in the present systematic review. Reviewers summarised recommendations on screening and diagnosis strategies from each guideline and rated the quality of guidelines by using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) criteria. RESULTS:A total of 459 citations were collected by the preliminary literature selection, and 16 guidelines that met the inclusion criteria were assessed. The inconsistencies of the guidelines mainly focus on the screening process (one step vs two step) and criteria of oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) (International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups [IADPSG] vs CarpenterandCoustan). Guidelines with higher AGREE scores usually recommend a one-step OGTT strategy with IADPSG criteria between 24 and 28 gestational weeks, and the majority of these guidelines likely to select evidence by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria. CONCLUSIONS:The guidelines of WHO-2013, NICE-2015, American Diabetes Association-2018, Endocrine Society-2013, Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada-2016, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics-2015, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists-2018, United States Preventive Services Task Force-2014 and IADPSG-2015 are strongly recommended in the present evaluation, according to the AGREE II criteria. Guidelines with higher quality tend to recommend a one-step 75 g OGTT strategy with IADPSG criteria between 24 and 28 gestational weeks.

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare the case-finding ability of current national guidelines for screening diabetes mellitus and characterize factors that affect testing practices in an ambulatory population.Patients and methodsIn this retrospective analysis, we reviewed a database of 46,991 nondiabetic patients aged 20 years and older who were seen at a large Midwestern academic physician practice from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2007. Patients were included in the sample if they were currently being treated by the physician group according to Wisconsin Collaborative for Healthcare Quality criteria. Pregnant patients, diabetic patients, and patients who died during the study years were excluded. The prevalence of patients who met the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and/or US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for diabetes screening, percentage of these patients screened, and number of new diabetes diagnoses per guideline were evaluated. Screening rates were assessed by number of high-risk factors, primary care specialty, and insurance status.ResultsA total of 33,823 (72.0%) of 46,991 patients met either the ADA or the USPSTF screening criteria, and 28,842 (85.3%) of the eligible patients were tested. More patients met the ADA criteria than the 2008 USPSTF criteria (30,790 [65.5%] vs 12,054 [25.6%]), and the 2008 USPSTF guidelines resulted in 460 fewer diagnoses of diabetes (33.1%). By single high-risk factor, prediabetes (15.8%) and polycystic ovarian syndrome (12.6%) produced the highest rates of diagnosis. The number of ADA high-risk factors predicted diabetes, with 6 (23%) of 26 patients with 6 risk factors diagnosed as having diabetes. Uninsured patients were tested significantly less often than insured patients (54.9% vs 85.4%).ConclusionCompared with the ADA recommendations, the new USPSTF guidelines result in a lower number of patients eligible for screening and decrease case finding significantly. The number and type of risk factors predict diabetes, and lack of health insurance decreases testing.

Project description:BackgroundBeing overweight is an important risk factor for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM), but the underlying mechanisms are not understood. Weight change between pregnancies has been suggested to be an independent mechanism behind GDM. We assessed the risk for GDM in second pregnancy by change in Body Mass Index (BMI) from first to second pregnancy and whether BMI and gestational weight gain modified the risk.Methods and findingsIn this observational cohort, we included 24,198 mothers and their 2 first pregnancies in data from the Medical Birth Registry of Norway (2006-2014). Weight change, defined as prepregnant BMI in second pregnancy minus prepregnant BMI in first pregnancy, was divided into 6 categories by units BMI (kilo/square meter). Relative risk (RR) estimates were obtained by general linear models for the binary family and adjusted for maternal age at second delivery, country of birth, education, smoking in pregnancy, interpregnancy interval, and year of second birth. Analyses were stratified by BMI (first pregnancy) and gestational weight gain (second pregnancy). Compared to women with stable BMI (-1 to 1), women who gained weight between pregnancies had higher risk of GDM-gaining 1 to 2 units: adjusted RR 2.0 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.7), 2 to 4 units: RR 2.6 (2.0 to 3.5), and ≥4 units: RR 5.4 (4.0 to 7.4). Risk increased significantly both for women with BMI below and above 25 at first pregnancy, although it increased more for the former group. A limitation in our study was the limited data on BMI in 2 pregnancies.ConclusionsThe risk of GDM increased with increasing weight gain from first to second pregnancy, and more strongly among women with BMI < 25 in first pregnancy. Our results suggest weight change as a metabolic mechanism behind the increased risk of GDM, thus weight change should be acknowledged as an independent factor for screening GDM in clinical guidelines. Promoting healthy weight from preconception through the postpartum period should be a target.

Project description:IntroductionNeonatal hypoglycemia is a common complication associated with gestational diabetes and therefore relevant to consider in evaluations of maternal treatment. We aimed to investigate the risk of neonatal hypoglycemia in offspring exposed to metformin treatment alone (MT) or combined with insulin (MIT) in comparison with nutrition therapy alone (NT), and insulin treatment alone (IT). In addition, we investigated MT in comparison with MIT. Secondary outcomes included neonatal anthropometrics, respiratory morbidity, hyperbilirubinemia, 5-min Apgar score, and preterm birth.Material and methodsThis Swedish population-based cohort included 16 181 women diagnosed with gestational diabetes, and their singleton offspring born in 2019-2021. We estimated risk as adjusted odds ratio (aOR) with 95% confidence interval (CI), using individual-level, linkage register-data in multivariable logistic regression models.ResultsIn the main analysis, MT was associated with a lower risk of neonatal hypoglycemia vs NT (aOR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.74-0.96), vs MIT (0.74 [0.64-0.87]), and vs IT (0.47 [0.40-0.55]), whereas MIT was associated with a similar risk of neonatal hypoglycemia vs NT (1.14 [0.99-1.30]) and with lower risk vs IT (0.63 [0.53-0.75]). However, supplemental feeding rates were lower for NT vs pharmacological treatments (p < 0.001). In post hoc subgroup analyses including only exclusively breastfed offspring, the risk of neonatal hypoglycemia was modified and similar among MT and NT, and higher in MIT vs NT. Insulin exposure, alone or combined with metformin, was associated with increased risk of being large for gestational age. Compared with NT, exposure to any pharmacological treatment was associated with significantly lower risk of 5-min Apgar score < 4. All other secondary outcomes were comparable among the treatment categories.ConclusionsThe risk of neonatal hypoglycemia appears to be comparable among offspring exposed to single metformin treatment and nutrition therapy alone, and the lower risk that we observed in favor of metformin is probably explained by a difference in supplemental feeding practices rather than metformin per se. By contrast, the lower risk favoring metformin exposure over insulin exposure was not explained by supplemental feeding. However, further investigations are required to determine whether the difference is an effect of metformin per se or mediated by other external factors.

Dataset Information

Surprisingly low compliance to local guidelines for risk factor based screening for gestational diabetes mellitus - A population-based study.

Publications

Surprisingly low compliance to local guidelines for risk factor based screening for gestational diabetes mellitus - A population-based study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets