Maternal and foetal outcome of gestational diabetes mellitus in a rural block of Assam, India

Mahanta, Tulika Goswami; Deuri, Ajanta; Mahanta, Bhupendra Narayan; Bordoloi, Prahlad; Rasaily, Reeta; Mahanta, Jagadish; Baruah, Swarnali Devi; Gogoi, Pronab

doi:10.1016/j.cegh.2013.10.001

Cited by 14 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Five studies were conducted in India, 8,9,26–28 one in Pakistan, 23 one in Bangladesh 24 and one in Sri Lanka 25 . All the studies were conducted in hospital settings except one study which was carried out in rural areas of Assam, India 26 . In five studies, GDM was diagnosed in accordance with the WHO criteria and was measured performing an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), 9,23,25–27 while in other studies ( n = 3), patient recall were used 8,24,28 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Characteristics of included studies are shown in Table 2 . Among the eight studies included, 8 , 9 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 six studies 8 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 utilized prospective observational study design while the remaining two studies 9 , 23 used a retrospective study design. All the studies selected were primary studies carried out in South Asian countries.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, one should be cautious while interpreting the findings of the research as the quality of the included studies was relatively moderate 8,9,23,25,27,28 to poor 24,26 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and adverse pregnancy outcome in South Asia: A systematic review

Mistry

Gupta

Alam

et al. 2021

Endocrino Diabet & Metabol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and adverse pregnancy outcome in South Asia: A systematic review

Mistry

Gupta

Alam

et al. 2021

Endocrino Diabet & Metabol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, 34.69% of the studies were conducted in the U.S. [22,24,25,31,33,34,[36][37][38]41,44,52,53,55,57,58,64], 14.2% in Australia [20,27,28,50,51,65,68], 28.5% in Asia [26,29,32,35,39,40,42,[46][47][48][49]60,63,66], and 22.4% in Europe [21,23,30,43,45,54,56,59,61,62,67].…”

Section: Literature Search Results and Quality Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A total of 95.9% studies were prospective or retrospective cohorts and 4% were cross-sectional studies [20,21]. In addition, 17 (34.6%) studies used the GDM classification of group 1 [21,22,26,35,38,40,47,48,50,51,53,54,[59][60][61]64,67] and IADPSG; 7 (14.2%) group 2 [20,27,28,51,59,65,68], 3 (6.1%) group 3 [32,46,56], 1 (2%) group 4 [51], 19 (38.7%) group 5 [23][24][25]29,31,33,34,36,39,40,42,44,47,53,55,57,58,64,66], 6 (12.2%) group 6…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Diagnostic Criteria for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus on Adverse Maternal Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Tehrani

Naz

Behboudi‐Gandevani

2021

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the impact of different gestational-diabetes (GDM) diagnostic-criteria on the risk of adverse-maternal-outcomes. The search process encompassed PubMed (Medline), Scopus, and Web of Science databases to retrieve original, population-based studies with the universal GDM screening approach, published in English language and with a focus on adverse-maternal-outcomes up to January 2020. According to GDM diagnostic criteria, the studies were classified into seven groups. A total of 49 population-based studies consisting of 1409018 pregnant women with GDM and 7,667,546 non-GDM counterparts were selected for data analysis and knowledge synthesis. Accordingly, the risk of adverse-maternal-outcomes including primary-cesarean, induction of labor, maternal-hemorrhage, and pregnancy-related-hypertension, overall, regardless of GDM diagnostic-criteria and in all diagnostic-criteria subgroups were significantly higher than non-GDM counterparts. However, in meta-regression, the increased risk was not influenced by the GDM diagnostic-classification and the magnitude of the risks among patients, using the IADPSG criteria-classification as the most strict-criteria, was similar to other criteria. In conclusion, a reduction in the diagnostic-threshold increased the prevalence of GDM, but the risk of adverse-maternal-outcome was not different among those women who were diagnosed through more or less intensive strategies. Our review findings can empower health-care-providers to select the most cost-effective approach for the screening of GDM among pregnant women.

show abstract

Screening and diagnosis of gestational diabetes in India: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Naik

Alexander

et al. 2018

Acta Diabetol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims Although diabetes is rapidly increasing in India, there is no national consensus on best practices for screening, diagnosis, and management of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The goal of this study was to systematically review the literature for studies reporting the prevalence and screening and diagnostic methods for gestational diabetes in India. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and POPLINE for studies on screening for GDM in India. We included English-language full reports and conference abstracts of cross-sectional studies, prospective, and retrospective cohorts that reported the screening method and prevalence of GDM. We performed descriptive analysis on all studies and meta-analysis, meta-regression, and subgroup meta-analysis on studies with medium or low risk of bias. Results We included 64 studies reporting 90 prevalence estimates. Prevalence estimates ranged from 0 to 41.9%. Subset meta-analyses showed that the IADPSG diagnostic criteria found significantly more GDM cases (prevalence = 19.19% [15.5, 23.6], p < 0.05) than the WHO 1999 criteria (10.13% [8.17, 12.50]) and DIPSI criteria (7.37% [5.2, 10.16]). Studies that compared the IADPSG and WHO 1999 criteria showed poor positive agreement (33–79%). Studies specifying time of GDM diagnosis showed that patients (11–60%) develop GDM as early as the first trimester, but many GDM cases (16–40%) are missed if screened only at first visit. Conclusions In India, prevalence estimates of GDM vary substantially by diagnostic criteria. When evaluating screening and diagnostic criteria for GDM, providers should consider their patients' needs and correlate screening criteria with pregnancy outcomes.

show abstract

Maternal and foetal outcome of gestational diabetes mellitus in a rural block of Assam, India

Cited by 14 publications

References 13 publications

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and adverse pregnancy outcome in South Asia: A systematic review

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and adverse pregnancy outcome in South Asia: A systematic review

The Impact of Diagnostic Criteria for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus on Adverse Maternal Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Screening and diagnosis of gestational diabetes in India: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About