Gestational diabetes and pregnancy outcomes-a systematic review of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) diagnostic criteria
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2012 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Institucional da UFRGS |
Texto Completo: | http://hdl.handle.net/10183/172563 |
Resumo: | Background: Two criteria based on a 2 h 75 g OGTT are being used for the diagnosis of gestational diabetes (GDM), those recommended over the years by the World Health Organization (WHO), and those recently recommended by the International Association for Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG), the latter generated in the HAPO study and based on pregnancy outcomes. Our aim is to systematically review the evidence for the associations between GDM (according to these criteria) and adverse outcomes. Methods: We searched relevant studies in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the Cochrane Library, CINHAL, WHO-Afro library, IMSEAR, EMCAT, IMEMR and WPRIM. We included cohort studies permitting the evaluation of GDM diagnosed by WHO and or IADPSG criteria against adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes in untreated women. Only studies with universal application of a 75 g OGTT were included. Relative risks (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were obtained for each study. We combined study results using a random-effects model. Inconsistency across studies was defined by an inconsistency index (I2) > 50% Results: Data were extracted from eight studies, totaling 44,829 women. Greater risk of adverse outcomes was observed for both diagnostic criteria. When using the WHO criteria, consistent associations were seen for macrosomia (RR = 1.81; 95%CI 1.47-2.22; p < 0.001); large for gestational age (RR = 1.53; 95%CI 1.39-1.69; p < 0.001); perinatal mortality (RR = 1.55; 95% CI 0.88-2.73; p = 0.13); preeclampsia (RR = 1.69; 95%CI 1.31-2.18; p < 0.001); and cesarean delivery (RR = 1.37;95%CI 1.24-1.51; p < 0.001). Less data were available for the IADPSG criteria, and associations were inconsistent across studies (I2 ≥ 73%). Magnitudes of RRs and their 95%CIs were 1.73 (1.28- 2.35; p = 0.001) for large for gestational age; 1.71 (1.38-2.13; p < 0.001) for preeclampsia; and 1.23 (1.01-1.51; p = 0.04) for cesarean delivery. Excluding either the HAPO or the EBDG studies minimally altered these associations, but the RRs seen for the IADPSG criteria were reduced after excluding HAPO. Conclusions: The WHO and the IADPSG criteria for GDM identified women at a small increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes. Associations were of similar magnitude for both criteria. However, high inconsistency was seen for those with the IADPSG criteria. Full evaluation of the latter in settings other than HAPO requires additional studies. |
id |
UFRGS-2_bca709dae229431af542e33aa10d23d5 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:www.lume.ufrgs.br:10183/172563 |
network_acronym_str |
UFRGS-2 |
network_name_str |
Repositório Institucional da UFRGS |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Wendland, Eliana Marcia da RosTorloni, Maria ReginaFalavigna, MaiconBagnasco, Nelly Janet TrujilloDode, Maria Alice Souza de OliveiraCampos, Maria Amélia Alves deDuncan, Bruce BartholowSchmidt, Maria Inês2018-02-16T02:29:20Z20121471-2393http://hdl.handle.net/10183/172563000873880Background: Two criteria based on a 2 h 75 g OGTT are being used for the diagnosis of gestational diabetes (GDM), those recommended over the years by the World Health Organization (WHO), and those recently recommended by the International Association for Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG), the latter generated in the HAPO study and based on pregnancy outcomes. Our aim is to systematically review the evidence for the associations between GDM (according to these criteria) and adverse outcomes. Methods: We searched relevant studies in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the Cochrane Library, CINHAL, WHO-Afro library, IMSEAR, EMCAT, IMEMR and WPRIM. We included cohort studies permitting the evaluation of GDM diagnosed by WHO and or IADPSG criteria against adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes in untreated women. Only studies with universal application of a 75 g OGTT were included. Relative risks (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were obtained for each study. We combined study results using a random-effects model. Inconsistency across studies was defined by an inconsistency index (I2) > 50% Results: Data were extracted from eight studies, totaling 44,829 women. Greater risk of adverse outcomes was observed for both diagnostic criteria. When using the WHO criteria, consistent associations were seen for macrosomia (RR = 1.81; 95%CI 1.47-2.22; p < 0.001); large for gestational age (RR = 1.53; 95%CI 1.39-1.69; p < 0.001); perinatal mortality (RR = 1.55; 95% CI 0.88-2.73; p = 0.13); preeclampsia (RR = 1.69; 95%CI 1.31-2.18; p < 0.001); and cesarean delivery (RR = 1.37;95%CI 1.24-1.51; p < 0.001). Less data were available for the IADPSG criteria, and associations were inconsistent across studies (I2 ≥ 73%). Magnitudes of RRs and their 95%CIs were 1.73 (1.28- 2.35; p = 0.001) for large for gestational age; 1.71 (1.38-2.13; p < 0.001) for preeclampsia; and 1.23 (1.01-1.51; p = 0.04) for cesarean delivery. Excluding either the HAPO or the EBDG studies minimally altered these associations, but the RRs seen for the IADPSG criteria were reduced after excluding HAPO. Conclusions: The WHO and the IADPSG criteria for GDM identified women at a small increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes. Associations were of similar magnitude for both criteria. However, high inconsistency was seen for those with the IADPSG criteria. Full evaluation of the latter in settings other than HAPO requires additional studies.application/pdfengBMC pregnancy and childbirth. London. Vol. 12 (Mar. 2012), 23, [13] f.Diabetes gestacionalGravidezRevisãoGestational diabetes and pregnancy outcomes-a systematic review of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) diagnostic criteriaEstrangeiroinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Institucional da UFRGSinstname:Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)instacron:UFRGSORIGINAL000873880.pdf000873880.pdfTexto completo (inglês)application/pdf580566http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/172563/1/000873880.pdff47dc91f31ee9daf8be84bc916912b3cMD51TEXT000873880.pdf.txt000873880.pdf.txtExtracted Texttext/plain46120http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/172563/2/000873880.pdf.txt010fda1cf9de1db64f33057a80ca9f28MD52THUMBNAIL000873880.pdf.jpg000873880.pdf.jpgGenerated Thumbnailimage/jpeg1891http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/172563/3/000873880.pdf.jpgcc364510e025f1d24fbd490cd3bd457cMD5310183/1725632018-10-29 07:39:14.496oai:www.lume.ufrgs.br:10183/172563Repositório de PublicaçõesPUBhttps://lume.ufrgs.br/oai/requestopendoar:2018-10-29T10:39:14Repositório Institucional da UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)false |
dc.title.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
Gestational diabetes and pregnancy outcomes-a systematic review of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) diagnostic criteria |
title |
Gestational diabetes and pregnancy outcomes-a systematic review of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) diagnostic criteria |
spellingShingle |
Gestational diabetes and pregnancy outcomes-a systematic review of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) diagnostic criteria Wendland, Eliana Marcia da Ros Diabetes gestacional Gravidez Revisão |
title_short |
Gestational diabetes and pregnancy outcomes-a systematic review of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) diagnostic criteria |
title_full |
Gestational diabetes and pregnancy outcomes-a systematic review of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) diagnostic criteria |
title_fullStr |
Gestational diabetes and pregnancy outcomes-a systematic review of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) diagnostic criteria |
title_full_unstemmed |
Gestational diabetes and pregnancy outcomes-a systematic review of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) diagnostic criteria |
title_sort |
Gestational diabetes and pregnancy outcomes-a systematic review of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) diagnostic criteria |
author |
Wendland, Eliana Marcia da Ros |
author_facet |
Wendland, Eliana Marcia da Ros Torloni, Maria Regina Falavigna, Maicon Bagnasco, Nelly Janet Trujillo Dode, Maria Alice Souza de Oliveira Campos, Maria Amélia Alves de Duncan, Bruce Bartholow Schmidt, Maria Inês |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Torloni, Maria Regina Falavigna, Maicon Bagnasco, Nelly Janet Trujillo Dode, Maria Alice Souza de Oliveira Campos, Maria Amélia Alves de Duncan, Bruce Bartholow Schmidt, Maria Inês |
author2_role |
author author author author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Wendland, Eliana Marcia da Ros Torloni, Maria Regina Falavigna, Maicon Bagnasco, Nelly Janet Trujillo Dode, Maria Alice Souza de Oliveira Campos, Maria Amélia Alves de Duncan, Bruce Bartholow Schmidt, Maria Inês |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Diabetes gestacional Gravidez Revisão |
topic |
Diabetes gestacional Gravidez Revisão |
description |
Background: Two criteria based on a 2 h 75 g OGTT are being used for the diagnosis of gestational diabetes (GDM), those recommended over the years by the World Health Organization (WHO), and those recently recommended by the International Association for Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG), the latter generated in the HAPO study and based on pregnancy outcomes. Our aim is to systematically review the evidence for the associations between GDM (according to these criteria) and adverse outcomes. Methods: We searched relevant studies in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the Cochrane Library, CINHAL, WHO-Afro library, IMSEAR, EMCAT, IMEMR and WPRIM. We included cohort studies permitting the evaluation of GDM diagnosed by WHO and or IADPSG criteria against adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes in untreated women. Only studies with universal application of a 75 g OGTT were included. Relative risks (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were obtained for each study. We combined study results using a random-effects model. Inconsistency across studies was defined by an inconsistency index (I2) > 50% Results: Data were extracted from eight studies, totaling 44,829 women. Greater risk of adverse outcomes was observed for both diagnostic criteria. When using the WHO criteria, consistent associations were seen for macrosomia (RR = 1.81; 95%CI 1.47-2.22; p < 0.001); large for gestational age (RR = 1.53; 95%CI 1.39-1.69; p < 0.001); perinatal mortality (RR = 1.55; 95% CI 0.88-2.73; p = 0.13); preeclampsia (RR = 1.69; 95%CI 1.31-2.18; p < 0.001); and cesarean delivery (RR = 1.37;95%CI 1.24-1.51; p < 0.001). Less data were available for the IADPSG criteria, and associations were inconsistent across studies (I2 ≥ 73%). Magnitudes of RRs and their 95%CIs were 1.73 (1.28- 2.35; p = 0.001) for large for gestational age; 1.71 (1.38-2.13; p < 0.001) for preeclampsia; and 1.23 (1.01-1.51; p = 0.04) for cesarean delivery. Excluding either the HAPO or the EBDG studies minimally altered these associations, but the RRs seen for the IADPSG criteria were reduced after excluding HAPO. Conclusions: The WHO and the IADPSG criteria for GDM identified women at a small increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes. Associations were of similar magnitude for both criteria. However, high inconsistency was seen for those with the IADPSG criteria. Full evaluation of the latter in settings other than HAPO requires additional studies. |
publishDate |
2012 |
dc.date.issued.fl_str_mv |
2012 |
dc.date.accessioned.fl_str_mv |
2018-02-16T02:29:20Z |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
Estrangeiro info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/10183/172563 |
dc.identifier.issn.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
1471-2393 |
dc.identifier.nrb.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
000873880 |
identifier_str_mv |
1471-2393 000873880 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10183/172563 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.ispartof.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
BMC pregnancy and childbirth. London. Vol. 12 (Mar. 2012), 23, [13] f. |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UFRGS instname:Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) instacron:UFRGS |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) |
instacron_str |
UFRGS |
institution |
UFRGS |
reponame_str |
Repositório Institucional da UFRGS |
collection |
Repositório Institucional da UFRGS |
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv |
http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/172563/1/000873880.pdf http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/172563/2/000873880.pdf.txt http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/172563/3/000873880.pdf.jpg |
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv |
f47dc91f31ee9daf8be84bc916912b3c 010fda1cf9de1db64f33057a80ca9f28 cc364510e025f1d24fbd490cd3bd457c |
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv |
MD5 MD5 MD5 |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Institucional da UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1798487365441814528 |