scholarly journals Comparison of the world health organization and the international association of diabetes and pregnancy study groups criteria in diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus in South Indians

2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 433 ◽  
Author(s):  
JayaPrakash Sahoo ◽  
Sadishkumar Kamalnathan ◽  
PrasantaKumar Nayak ◽  
Subarna Mitra
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
DURED DARDARI ◽  
Francois-Xavier Laborne ◽  
Caroline Tourte ◽  
Elodie Henry ◽  
Alfred Penfornis

Abstract Iodine supplementation is indicated by the French High Authority for Health (HAS) and by the World Health Organization (WHO) during pregnancy. We want to know if this supplementation is prescribed in a manner consistent with the HAS and WHO recommenations in women diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus.Results: Recruitment for the study will start August 2021 and will be ended in October 2021, with the final study results scheduled for December 2021Conclusion The objective of the Iododiab study is to assess whether practitioners caring for women with gestational diabetes mellitus prescribe iodine supplementation according to the recommendations of the French High Authority for Health and by the World Health Organization.


2012 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariya V Boyadzhieva ◽  
Iliana Atanasova ◽  
Sabina Zacharieva ◽  
Tsvetalina Tankova ◽  
Violeta Dimitrova

Background To compare current guidelines for diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and to identify the ones that are the most relevant for application among pregnant Bulgarian population. Methods A total of 800 pregnant women at high risk for GDM underwent 75 g oral glucose tolerance test between 24 and 28 weeks of gestation as antenatal screening. The results were interpreted and classified according to the guidelines of the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG), American Diabetes Association (ADA), Australasian Diabetes in Pregnancy Society, Canadian Diabetes Association, European Association for the Study of Diabetes, New Zealand Society for the study of Diabetes and World Health Organization. Results The application of different diagnostic criteria resulted in prevalences of GDM between 10.8% and 31.6%. Using any two sets of criteria, women who were classified differently varied between 0.1% and 21.1% ( P < 0.001).The IADPSG criteria were the most inclusive criteria and resulted in the highest prevalence of GDM. There was a significant difference in the major metabolic parameters between GDM and control groups, regardless of which of the diagnostic criteria applied. GDM diagnosed according to all criteria resulted in increased proportion of delivery by caesarean section (CS). However, only ADA and IADPSG criteria identified both increased macrosomia (odds ratio, 2.36; 2.29) and CS rate. Conclusion The need for GDM screening is indisputable. In our view, the new IADPSG guidelines offer a unique opportunity for a unified national and global approach to GDM.


2009 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 149-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Latika Sahu ◽  
R Satyakala ◽  
Reddi Rani

Two to five percent of pregnancies are complicated by diabetes, of which 90% are classified as gestational diabetes mellitus.The aims and objectives of this study were to analyse the screening and diagnostic procedure for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) recommended by American Diabetes Association (ADA) in comparison with the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria and to study the outcome of GDM diagnosed by both the criteria. This prospective study was carried out in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, JIPMER between August 2006 and July 2008. Three-hundred-and-fifty antenatal cases of gestational age ≥24 weeks attending the outpatient department, with any one of the risk factors for GDM, were included in the study. A seventy-five gram oral glucose tolerance test (GTT) was performed on each subject. Results were interpreted using both ADA and WHO criteria. Antenatal complications of GDM, mode of delivery, intrapartum or postnatal maternal and neonatal complications in cases diagnosed with GDM by either criterion were noted. The data collected were analysed using the SPSS software program. The prevalence of GDM was 4% by ADA criteria versus 19.4% by WHO criteria. The diagnostic pick-up rate was approximately five times more with WHO than with ADA criteria. In total, 43% (ADA) and 29% (WHO) of GDM cases had antenatal complications. Seventy-four percent of mothers with macrosomic babies were identified by WHO criteria whereas only 26% of mothers with macrosomic babies were diagnosed by ADA criteria. ADA criteria identify more severe cases of GDM but mild cases diagnosed by WHO are missed. The GTT by WHO criteria was abnormal in a greater percentage of women with adverse outcomes especially macrosomia, than the GTT using ADA criteria.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document