Background: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is the most common complication of pregnancy and an important public health concern. Several studies have investigated the prevalence of gestational diabetes in different parts of Iran with different results. Objectives: The present study aimed to review studies on gestational diabetes prevalence and estimate the prevalence of gestational diabetes in Iran. Methods: A search on gestational diabetes mellitus and related synonyms was conducted using global and national databases, including PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, Web of Sciences, Google Scholar, SID, IranMedex, Magiran, Irandoc, Medlib. Moreover, gray literature and reference checks and a library search were conducted. Keywords included: prevalence, Iran, gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), and their synonyms. The inclusion criteria were observational studies (cross-sectional, prospective cohorts, and retrospective cohorts) published in Persian or English between 2000 and 2020 on the prevalence or incidence of gestational diabetes in Iran, a sample size of more than 100 people, and availably of full texts. The selected articles were thoroughly reviewed, and after quality assessment, the required information was extracted and included in the meta-analysis. Results: From 907 articles, 48 were included in the meta-analysis according to the inclusion criteria, which included 51,259 patients with an average age (standard deviation) of 27.05 years (1.83). The overall prevalence of GDM in Iran was 10% (11,9: 95% confidence interval). The prevalence of GDM had increased in recent years, from 4% before 2005 to 16% in 2016 to 2020 (20,12: 95% CI). There was significant heterogeneity between studies, and the I-square index was 98%. Conclusion:The prevalence of gestational diabetes in Iran is slowly increasing. The increasing prevalence of gestational diabetes can heuaerht yrsueires the health of mothers, fetuses, and newborns in the near future.

Introduction: Assessment of fetal weight is a vital factor in antenatal care, not only in the management of labor and delivery but also in identifying fetal weight disorders. Objective: This study compares the accuracy of clinical methods and ultrasonography in Estimating Fetal Weight (EFW) with Actual Birth Weight (ABW) in term pregnant women. Materials and Methods: This diagnostic test evaluation study was performed on 247 single-term pregnant women admitted to an educational, therapeutic hospital in Rasht City, Iran. In this study, abdominal palpation, Johnson’s formula, Insler’s formula, and ultrasonography were used to estimate fetal weight. One-sample t-test, the Chi-square, and the Bland-Altman plot were used to compare the diagnostic value of fetal weight estimation methods. The accuracy of tests was estimated based on sensitivity and specificity in fetal weight groups (below 2500 g, 2500- 4000 g, and above 4000 g) by the Bland-Altman plot. Results: The participating pregnant women had a Mean±SD age of 28.86±4.24 years, body mass index of 32.98±6.0 kg/m2, and gestational age of 39±1.04 wk. Their Mean±SD actual birth weight was 3343.352±432.799 gr, Also, the Mean±SD birth weight found by abdominal palpation was 3371.053±345.561 gr, Mean±SD birth weight by Johnson’s formula 3041.206 ±411 gr, by Insler’s formula 3556.316±531.567 gr, and by ultrasonography 3294.28±380.09 gr, Based on the one-sample t-test, the abdominal palpation had the lowest (P=0.261), and the Insler’s formula (P=0.001) had the highest difference with the actual birth weight. Regarding the fetal weight groups, Insler’s formula (96.33%) was highly accurate in Low Birth Weight (LBW), but abdominal palpation (91.09%) was more accurate in normal weight and macrosomia (94.72%) groups. There was a significant difference between clinical methods with ABW (P=0.026). Conclusion: Clinical methods are accessible, affordable, and available and can estimate fetal weight in developing countries, especially in our country.