2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2015.06.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Gestational diabetes mellitus prevalence: Effect of the laboratory analytical variation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

4
11
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
4
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The estimated prevalence of GDM in Kuwait (12.6%, 95% CI: 10.4%, 14.8%) is similar to estimates found in neighboring countries such as Bahrain (10.1%) [22], UAE (13.3%) [23], Saudi Arabia (15.4%) [24], and Qatar (16.3%) [25]. Comparative data for GDM in the United States [20], Australia [26], and Sweden [27] range from 4.6-9.2%, 4.8-6.7%, and 0.4-1.5%, respectively.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 68%
“…The estimated prevalence of GDM in Kuwait (12.6%, 95% CI: 10.4%, 14.8%) is similar to estimates found in neighboring countries such as Bahrain (10.1%) [22], UAE (13.3%) [23], Saudi Arabia (15.4%) [24], and Qatar (16.3%) [25]. Comparative data for GDM in the United States [20], Australia [26], and Sweden [27] range from 4.6-9.2%, 4.8-6.7%, and 0.4-1.5%, respectively.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 68%
“…However, the prevalence of GDM and the class-risk rate were similar to those reported by us before [28,29,36,37], thus suggesting that a selection bias was very unlikely. In addition, the enrollment of pregnant women and the FTCT and OGTT tests were performed at a single center, and this, in our opinion, constitutes a strength of this work, which contributes to the minimization of the bias linked to inter-laboratory analytical variations [38]. Another strength of our study is the uniformity of GDM diagnosis among the study participants; in fact, we only enrolled women in whom screening for GDM was performed by adopting the new IADPSG cut-offs.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We are unable to determine the cause for the marked difference in fasting glucose distribution in the OCC compared with other cohorts. Agarwal et al (15) have notedthat laboratory variations, well within acceptable limits, may be associated with a halving or doubling of GDM prevalence. The Danish Inter99 population study (outside pregnancy) reported that lowering the threshold for impaired fasting glucose (IFG) from 6.0 mmol/L (recommended by WHO) to 5.5 mmol/L (recommended by the American Diabetes Association)would create a "pandemic" of prediabetes (16), increasing IFG from 12 to 38% in their cohort.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%