screening for gestational diabetes: summary of the evidence

Return to the home page of the Diabetes Monitor

The summaries of the evidence briefly present evidence of effectiveness for preventive health services used in primary care clinical settings, including screening tests, counseling, and chemoprevention. They summarize the more detailed Systematic Evidence Reviews, which are used by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) to make recommendations.

Abstract
Epidemiology
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
Acknowledgments
References
Notes

Abstract

Objective: To systematically review the evidence for screening for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).

Methods: We established eligibility criteria for relevant studies. We systematically searched MEDLINE® and the Cochrane Collaboration Library for studies meeting eligibility criteria; we supplemented this search with further studies identified from reference lists of reviews. Two reviewers examined each article for eligibility. A single reviewer abstracted relevant data from the included articles; a second reviewer checked the abstractions. We graded the quality of the articles according to criteria developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

Results: No well-conducted randomized controlled trial (RCT) provides direct evidence for the health benefits of screening for GDM. The evidence is unclear about the optimal screening and reference diagnostic test for GDM. The impact of hyperglycemia on adverse maternal and neonatal health outcomes is probably continuous. Although insulin therapy decreases the incidence of fetal macrosomia for those women with more severe degrees of hyperglycemia, the magnitude of any effect on maternal and neonatal health outcomes is not clear. The evidence is insufficient to determine the magnitude of health benefit for any treatment among the large number of women with GDM at milder degrees of hyperglycemia. We found limited evidence about the potential adverse effects of screening for GDM.

Conclusion: Because of the lack of high quality evidence concerning critical issues, we are unable to determine the extent to which screening has an important impact on maternal and neonatal health outcomes. An RCT of screening is necessary to answer the many remaining questions.

Return to Contents

Epidemiology

GDM is defined as glucose intolerance with the onset or first detection during pregnancy.^1,2 About 135,000 cases of GDM are diagnosed annually in the United States.² Important risk factors include higher maternal age, family history of diabetes, and increased pregravid body mass index (BMI).³ The prevalence of GDM in low-risk populations ranges from 1.4 to 2.8 percent;^4,5 in high-risk populations, prevalence ranges from 3.3 to 6.1 percent.⁴

Markedly elevated maternal glucose levels most often occur in women with pregestational diabetes. Pregnant women with pregestational diabetes are at higher risk for multiple complications affecting both the mother and the fetus than those women without diabetes. Current therapy improves outcomes for both mother and neonate.⁶

The additional risk for adverse health outcomes attributable to the milder degrees of maternal hyperglycemia associated with GDM and the magnitude of the benefit from treating that risk are less certain. No well-designed and conducted RCT of screening for GDM has been completed, and thus the evidence for screening is indirect.

National groups disagree about whether to recommend screening for GDM.^2,7-11 Despite no strong recommendations in favor of universal screening from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), 94 percent of Fellows in office-based practices reported performing universal screening for GDM in 1996.¹² Fellows performed this screening even though ACOG acknowledged the weakness in the evidence in both 1994¹³ and 2000.²

With continued controversy around the advisability of GDM screening, the RTI-University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center (RTI-UNC EPC) conducted a systematic evidence review to assist the USPSTF in reconsidering its 1996 review, which found insufficient evidence to recommend screening. We restricted this review to screening for GDM after 24 weeks' gestation, thus excluding both women with known pregestational diabetes and those who are discovered by symptoms earlier in pregnancy.

Return to Contents

Materials and Methods

Sources

Our review of the literature was guided by key questions and inclusion criteria we developed relevant to the issue of screening for GDM (Table 1). We required RCTs for direct evidence of the efficacy of treatment and the harms associated with treatment. We examined the critical literature from the 1996 USPSTF review and searched MEDLINE® and the Cochrane Library for reviews and relevant studies published in English between January 1, 1994, and August 30, 2002. We supplemented this search by examining the reference lists of pertinent articles and by contacting experts. We also conducted focused searches of MEDLINE® from 1966 through 1994 to identify older articles of interest.

Study Selection

All searches began by exploding the term "diabetes, gestational" and then proceeded by adding further terms. We retrieved the full text of all articles we thought were potentially eligible. Two reviewers examined each article for eligibility. A single reviewer abstracted relevant data from the included articles; a second reviewer checked the abstractions.

We abstracted all included articles, entered the data into evidence tables, graded the quality of all articles according to USPSTF criteria,¹⁴ and resolved disagreements by discussion. We synthesized the evidence into a systematic evidence review; this was subjected to extensive external peer review and revised as appropriate.¹⁵ The final systematic evidence review, including the evidence tables, is available on the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Web site (www.preventiveservices.ahrq.gov). This article summarizes the evidence from that review.

Return to Contents

Results

For the USPSTF to recommend screening for GDM, it must have either direct evidence from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of screening or indirect evidence that establishes a complete linkage between screening and improved health outcomes. We found no well-conducted RCT that provides direct evidence for the health benefits of screening for GDM. Given this, the USPSTF requires adequate evidence that:

Untreated GDM causes substantial maternal and/or neonatal adverse health outcomes.
Available screening tests accurately and efficiently detect GDM.
Available treatments improve health outcomes, with a magnitude that clearly justifies the harms and effort of screening and treatment.

These issues will be examined in the sections that follow.

What Adverse Health Outcomes Occur with Untreated GDM?

Determining the existence and magnitude of a causal association between various degrees of GDM and adverse health outcomes is complex. We have only older studies of untreated GDM, at a time when obstetric practice differed from current practice, or more recent studies in which women received some treatment for GDM. Another problem with many studies is that they consider GDM as a dichotomous variable, yet we know that the risk for adverse health outcomes increases with the degree of hyperglycemia among women with GDM; the impact of hyperglycemia on adverse maternal and neonatal health outcomes is probably continuous.^16-19 Few studies, however, stratify the risks of GDM by severity of hyperglycemia.

Offspring Health Outcomes

Because the literature is scant and mixed about whether untreated GDM, given optimal obstetric care today, is associated with increased perinatal mortality,^19-27 the extent to which GDM is truly associated with perinatal mortality remains unclear.

Macrosomia is an intermediate outcome of GDM. Three recent studies of untreated women with GDM^20,22,23 found that the percentage of infants with macrosomia weighing more than 4,000 grams was between about 17 percent and 29 percent; the percentage in the general population is about 10 percent.²⁶ Most infants with macrosomia are born to women without GDM;²⁸ maternal obesity is an important potential confounding factor associated with both GDM and (independently) with macrosomia.

Important adverse neonatal health outcomes linked to macrosomia are brachial plexus injury and clavicular fracture. The best (although minimal) data on untreated women with GDM compared with the non-GDM population reveal no difference in the rate of infant brachial plexus injury or clavicular fracture.²² Recent data suggest that women treated for GDM with more severe degrees of hyperglycemia may have a 2-percent absolute increase in having their infants develop a brachial plexus injury and a 6 percent increase in having their infants develop a clavicular fracture.^26,29 While these adverse health outcomes are of concern, the best studies show that 80-90 percent of brachial plexus injuries resolve by 1 year of life,^30-33 and more than 95 percent of clavicular fractures heal within a few months without residual problems.^34-39

GDM may also be a risk factor for neonatal hypoglycemia. Studies among untreated²⁰ and treated women with GDM have found higher rates of neonatal hypoglycemia among untreated women with GDM. The magnitude of clinically important neonatal hypoglycemia is less clear. Also not clear is whether increased surveillance of infants whose mothers have GDM contributes to the increased finding of hypoglycemia in their infants.

Likewise, the evidence is limited and unclear as to whether GDM is associated with preterm birth or neonatal hyperbilirubinemia, hypocalcemia, or polycythemia.^{1,20,38,40-44} Because of limited evidence and the increased surveillance given to infants of women with GDM, the magnitude of any associated adverse health effects is uncertain but is likely to be small.

Some have suggested that the diagnosis of maternal GDM may have long-term implications for the offspring, such as an increased risk for impaired glucose tolerance, childhood obesity, and neuropsychological disturbances. No large observational study has followed a group of children whose mothers have GDM and a comparison group whose mothers do not have GDM long enough to demonstrate whether any of these hypotheses are correct.^45-48

Maternal Health Outcomes

The diagnosis of GDM can also increase adverse health outcomes for the mother during her pregnancy. Limited data since 1980 reveal total cesarean delivery rates of 22 percent⁴⁹ to 30 percent²² for unrecognized or untreated women with GDM, compared with a rate of about 17 percent for women without GDM. Although the overall literature suggests an association between GDM and higher cesarean delivery rates,^31,50-54 some studies are limited by a lack of adjustment for maternal obesity and by the impact of the diagnosis of GDM on clinical decisionmaking.

Limited evidence is available on the rate of third- or fourth-degree lacerations in women with GDM. Some studies have suggested an increase,³⁰ but the only study that found a substantial percentage of women with untreated GDM who had such lacerations included only 16 subjects.²⁶ Another study found equally low rates among women with GDM and women without GDM.²²

Overall, observational studies have shown mixed results and are inconclusive as to whether women with GDM have a higher risk for pre-eclampsia than women without GDM.^1,39,55-57 Recent data from untreated women with GDM²² reveal a rate of pre-eclampsia (about 9 percent) that is similar to that for treated women and women without GDM.^58-61

Mothers identified as having gestational diabetes also have a higher risk for developing type 2 diabetes in the years after delivery.⁶² Studies investigating the rate of development of type 2 diabetes after the onset of gestational diabetes have suffered from low participation rates, retrospective design, short followup, and variation in definition of both GDM and new diabetes. Although nearly all studies show that women who have GDM face some increased risk for developing diabetes, the degree of risk elevation they experience and the degree of glucose abnormality they develop are uncertain.² Further, the added benefit of early detection of diabetes in young women with few cardiovascular risk factors is uncertain.⁶³

How Accurate and Reliable Are Screening Tests for GDM?

Reference Diagnostic Test

Before we can determine the accuracy of a screening test, we need a reference diagnostic test for comparison. Unfortunately, no universally agreed on reference test for the diagnosis of GDM exists.

Three competing criteria for diagnostic glucose tolerance tests (GTT) are available (Table 2). Criteria from the World Health Organization (WHO)⁶⁴ label twice as many women with GDM as do criteria from the National Diabetes Data Group (NDDG).⁶⁵ Criteria from the American Diabetes Association (ADA)⁶⁶ give an intermediate prevalence.^2,67-69

Abnormal values on any of the three tests are predictive of fetal macrosomia.^11,23,70-72 This association is diminished or eliminated when adjustments are made for such potential confounders as pregravid weight, age, parity, and race.

The reliability of any oral GTT is open to question. In 1 of the few studies on this issue, Harlass et al. found that 23 percent of 64 unselected pregnant women who had had a positive screening test for GDM had inconsistent results between two 100-gram oral GTTs performed 1 week apart.⁷³ Other studies have also raised concerns about the reproducibility of the oral GTT in nonpregnant groups.^74-76

Screening Tests

The thresholds for the reference diagnostic tests do not clearly distinguish women at high risk from women at low risk for adverse maternal or neonatal health outcomes from GDM. Thus, we can evaluate screening tests only against imperfect standards. Most studies on GDM screening strategies compare the results of one test with the results of another test rather than examining how the test predicts adverse health outcomes. Some studies assess the association of the test with intermediate outcomes such as macrosomia rather than health outcomes such as brachial plexus injury.

In the United States, the 50-gram, 1-hour glucose challenge test (GCT) is most commonly used for screening (Table 2). Two groups have proposed different threshold criteria to define a positive screening test. If the GCT glucose value is above either 130 mg/dL⁷⁷ or 140 mg/dL,⁶⁵ then the patient is usually given the 100-gram GTT for diagnosis. Using the 130 mg/dl threshold, the GCT is positive for 20-25 percent of all pregnant women, including 90 percent of women with GDM. Using the 140 mg/dl threshold, the GCT is positive for 14-18 percent of all pregnant women, including about 80 percent of women with GDM.⁶⁷

In the general population, false-positive results for the GCT are common. Fewer than 1 in 5 women with a positive GCT will meet criteria for GDM on a full 100-gram GTT.⁷⁸ The reliability of the GCT is also problematic.¹⁶

In many countries outside North America, clinicians use the WHO screening approach: the 75-gram 2-hour oral GTT as a single-step screening and diagnostic test. As noted above, this approach identifies at least twice as many women as having GDM as the two-step approach, although the evidence is sparse about whether the one-step test is more or less predictive of adverse health outcomes than the two-step approach.^68,69

Because glucose intolerance increases during pregnancy, screening for GDM is most commonly conducted during the 24th to 28th week of gestation. However, this timing is not based on any evidence that this is the optimal time to identify women who would benefit most from treatment. Determining the best time to screen involves examining the trade-off between the potential benefits of early screening (i.e., finding fewer women at higher risk and treating them for a longer time) and the potential benefits of later screening (i.e., finding a larger number of women at lower risk and treating them for a shorter time).¹⁹ We found no study on this issue.

One suggested approach to improve the efficiency of screening for GDM is to restrict screening to women at higher risk ("selective screening") rather than screening all women ("universal screening"). In the most detailed study of selective screening strategies, Naylor et al. developed a scoring system that excluded nearly 35 percent of women from screening and actually detected more cases of GDM than universal screening.⁶¹

In summary, the evidence is unclear about the optimal screening and reference diagnostic test for screening for GDM.

Does Treatment for GDM Improve Health Outcomes?

Glycemic Control

Three factors are important in considering studies that evaluate the impact of tight glycemic control on health outcomes for women with GDM:

The first is the degree of hyperglycemia in study participants. As the risk for at least some adverse health events increases with an increasing degree of hyperglycemia, the potential absolute risk reduction may be larger with higher glycemic levels. More than 70 percent of women diagnosed with GDM have mild hyperglycemia and are usually treated with diet alone.^24,41,79
The second important factor is the degree of separation of glycemic control between treatment groups. If intensive treatment does not produce a reasonable reduction in glycemic level compared with conventional treatment (or no treatment), the hypothesis of improved glycemic control leading to better health outcomes cannot be tested.
The third factor in considering these studies is assessment of outcomes: which ones to assess and how to assess them. Most of these studies focused on intermediate outcomes such as fetal macrosomia or chemical findings such as neonatal hypoglycemia. Intermediate outcomes are useful only insofar as they predict important health outcomes that people care about.¹⁴ In the case of fetal macrosomia, an intermediate outcome, only a small percentage of these cases lead to maternal or neonatal trauma. In the case of chemical findings (e.g., glucose or bilirubin level), few studies reported the percentage of abnormalities that required treatment; no study was clearly reassuring that differences attributed to improved glycemic control were not associated instead with more intense surveillance of infants born to GDM mothers. Finally, because few of these studies masked the obstetricians,^80,81 interventions or outcomes that depend on clinician judgment (e.g., cesarean delivery rates) could be biased by knowledge of GDM status.²²

Table 3 records data from nine RCTs examining the impact of therapy on a variety of outcomes.^{20,29,58-60,80-83} The first four RCTs are of women with mild hyperglycemia^20,80,81,83 and the last five are of women with severe or very severe hyperglycemia.^29,58-60,82

Mild Hyperglycemia. Few studies have examined the effectiveness of intensive compared with less intensive glycemic control among women with GDM who have mild hyperglycemia. An overview of 4 trials that included 612 women with mild hyperglycemia found no difference in adverse health outcomes between the women treated with a modified diet and the women receiving no therapy.⁸⁴ The Li et al. RCT made a similar comparison and had similar findings.⁸¹

Three RCTs compared intensive with less intensive glycemic control (achieving some glycemic separation) among women with GDM who had varying degrees of hyperglycemia but a low mean entry fasting plasma glucose (FPG) or mean hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c).^20,80,83 Two studies found statistically significant improvements in intermediate outcomes for those women undergoing intensive glycemic control (e.g., fewer large-for-gestational age [LGA] infants⁸³; lower incidence of neonatal hypocalcemia²⁰); no study found clear differences in health outcomes between glycemic control groups.

Severe Hyperglycemia. Four RCTs examined tight and less tight glycemic control among women with GDM at more severe hyperglycemic levels (Table 3).^29,58,60,82 Of these trials, three achieved either small or no difference in glycemic control between groups and found no difference in major outcomes.^29,58,60 One trial found a small absolute reduction in chemical abnormalities in the neonate⁵⁸; another found a reduction in cesarean deliveries that was not explained by fetal size.²⁹

One study achieved a larger glycemic separation between groups (difference in mean glucose, 24 mg/dL).⁸² The infants of less intensively treated women had a higher mean birth weight plus higher rates of neonatal hypoglycemia and polycythemia. These differences were small and of uncertain clinical importance.

Finally, de Veciana et al. compared tight with less tight control among women with very severe hyperglycemia, some of whom likely had frank diabetes (Table 3).⁵⁹ They also achieved the largest separation in glycemic control (HbA1c difference of 1.6 percent) and found some of the larger reductions in fetal macrosomia and neonatal hypoglycemia. Given the study population, however, this trial may have little relevance for the great majority of women detected with GDM.

A major issue in all of these trials is that they have too few participants to be able to detect small differences among treatment groups in such uncommon adverse health outcomes as perinatal mortality and brachial plexus injury. They have even less power to determine whether the health benefit is different for women with GDM who have severe hyperglycemia compared with those who have mild hyperglycemia. They provide insufficient evidence to confirm or refute the hypothesis that glycemic control improves health outcomes for women with GDM.

Several observational studies without randomized controls have suggested improved intermediate or health outcomes with more intensive treatment of women with GDM.^22,71,85-91 The weakness in these studies is that women in the treatment groups differ from women in the control groups in multiple ways (some known and some unknown) other than glycemic control; most of the known factors are also associated with health outcomes. Thus, observed improvements in health outcomes may be attributable to factors other than glycemic control.

In summary, although insulin therapy decreases the incidence of fetal macrosomia for those women with more severe degrees of hyperglycemia, the magnitude of any effect on maternal and neonatal health outcomes is not clear. The evidence is insufficient to determine the magnitude of health benefit of tight glycemic control among the large number of women with GDM at milder degrees of hyperglycemia.

Antepartum Surveillance

Various approaches to antepartum surveillance might improve health outcomes among women with GDM. For non-stress testing (NST) or biophysical profile (BPP) to constitute a rationale for GDM screening, evidence would need to show that the use of these tests reduces stillbirth among women with GDM who have no other indication for these tests. This would require a large RCT, as most women with GDM have a low risk for having a stillbirth. No completed study of women with GDM has examined health outcomes among groups randomized to receive or not receive NST or BPP. Observational studies have found that using NSTs or BPPs in women with GDM is associated with either absent or very low rates of stillbirth.^92-95 Without appropriate control groups we do not know whether the low rate of fetal death can be attributed to the additional procedures.⁹⁴ NSTs or BPPs have high false-positive rates,^92,95 and they lead to interventions⁹⁴ that may, on occasion, be unnecessary.

Ultrasound assessment of abdominal circumference to allow improved targeting of insulin therapy in order to decrease fetal macrosomia and birth trauma has been studied. Three RCTs have enrolled women with hyperglycemia into insulin therapy triggered by ultrasound abdominal circumference.^29,83,96 These studies have not found any important differences in health outcomes; all three lacked power to detect differences in health outcomes and in none were the obstetricians masked to the intervention group.

What are the Harms and Costs of Screening and Treatment?

Precise evidence on the harms and costs of screening for GDM and early treatment is lacking. Although not well documented, the potential for adverse psychological effects from screening is real; in the general population, more than 80 percent of all positive GCT screening tests are false positives.⁹⁷ Limited and mixed data suggest that labeling may negatively influence women's perceptions of their health during pregnancy^97-100 and that women diagnosed with GDM may have long-term changes in their perception of their own health.^98,101 The long-term impact of these changes in perception of health is unclear.

Identification of GDM may also needlessly increase the use of NSTs or BPPs (triggering unnecessary interventions due to false positives) and rates of cesarean delivery (because of a lowered intervention threshold).^22,70 Furthermore, additional tests and procedures increase the cost of screening programs. Because of the lack of evidence, the magnitude of other potential harms of aggressive glycemic-lowering therapy, such as increased maternal starvation ketosis and infants who are small for gestational age, is difficult to quantify.^18,102

As the effectiveness of screening in improving health outcomes is uncertain, so the cost-effectiveness cannot be calculated with any precision. We do not have good information about the differences in health care costs between screened and unscreened women.

Return to Contents

Discussion

Maternal and neonatal morbidity increase with increasing levels of maternal hyperglycemia. Screening and intensive treatment for GDM aim to reduce this morbidity. Various screening strategies can detect women with different degrees of hyperglycemia, but the threshold at which health outcomes begin to deteriorate to a clinically important degree is uncertain.

The magnitude of any benefit of intensive treatment at the various levels of hyperglycemia associated with GDM is also uncertain, but it is likely to be small among the many women with mild hyperglycemia. For women with GDM who have more severe hyperglycemia, intensive treatment is likely to reduce macrosomia. The extent to which this translates into reductions in birth trauma is uncertain but probably substantially less than reductions in macrosomia.

The evidence about the health outcomes of intensive treatment of women with GDM at various levels of maternal hyperglycemia is indirect. It is also limited by a small number of studies, small number of participants, lack of masking of obstetrical care, lack of control for important confounders, and lack of emphasis on health outcomes rather than intermediate outcomes.

By making various assumptions, we can calculate the number needed to screen (NNS) to prevent various adverse health outcomes. Take, for example, the number of women needed to screen to prevent one case of brachial plexus injury (Table 4). Assume that 4 percent of pregnant women have GDM,² that 30 percent of them will have a high enough glycemic level to require insulin,⁷⁹ and that, among these women, the macrosomia rate is reduced to the degree seen in the most positive study.⁵⁹ The NNS to prevent one brachial plexus injury is about 8,900 (Case 1, Table 4).^32,33,103 If we make more generous assumptions, the NNS becomes 3,300 (best case scenario, shown in Case 3 and footnote, Table 4). Assumptions including a lesser reduction in macrosomia, accounting for cesarean delivery rates, or using an outcome of permanent brachial plexus injury, would give much higher NNS estimates.²

One potential benefit of detecting women with GDM is the knowledge that they have a higher risk for developing type 2 diabetes. The extent to which this information can lead to a health benefit for younger women with few cardiovascular risk factors, however, is uncertain.⁶³

The evidence concerning the harms and costs of screening and intensive treatment is even more limited than the evidence about benefits, but several harms are of concern. Many women may suffer anxiety of uncertain duration because of a false-positive screening test. Labeling women with GDM as having an increased risk for future GDM and type 2 diabetes may have psychological implications. Detection of GDM may increase the probability of cesarean delivery; multiple antenatal tests may increase the probability of a false-positive test leading to unnecessary procedures. Costs may be increased with little health benefit for many women, especially those many women with mild hyperglycemia.

It is difficult to see how the issue of screening for GDM can be clarified without large RCTs with an untreated control arm, masked obstetrical care, and measurement of health (not just intermediate) outcomes. These studies should also monitor and report harms and costs associated with screening and intensive treatment. The National Institute for Child Health and Human Development is sponsoring one such study—the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Network multicenter trial of treatment of mild GDM, involving approximately 2,400 women—to be completed in 2004.

Screening for GDM is contentious. The reason for this controversy is largely a lack of high-quality research addressing the central issues. Only good research can end the controversy and inform us how to best serve our patients.

Return to Contents

Acknowledgments

This study was developed by the RTI-UNC Evidence-based Practice Center under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (Contract No. 290-97-0011), Rockville, MD.

References

1. Magee MS, Walden CE, Benedetti TJ, Knopp RH. Influence of diagnostic criteria on the incidence of gestational diabetes and perinatal morbidity. JAMA 1993;269:609-15.

2. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics. ACOG Practice Bulletin. Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. No. 30, September 2001. Obstet Gynecol 2001;98:525-38.

3. Solomon CG , Willet WC, Carey VJ, et al. A prospective study of pregravid determinants of gestational diabetes mellitus. JAMA 1997;278:1078-83.

4. Marquette GP, Klein VR, Niebyl JR. Efficacy of screening for gestational diabetes. Am J Perinatol 1985;2:7-9.

5. Moses RG, Moses J, Davis WS. Gestational diabetes: do lean young Caucasian women need to be tested? Diabetes Care 1998;21:1803-6.

6. Hunter DJS. Diabetes in pregnancy. In: Iain Chalmers, Murray Enkin, Marc J.N.C. Keirse, eds. Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth. Toronto: Oxford University Press; 1989:578-93.

7. Hoffman L, Nolan C, Wilson JD, Oats JJ, Simmons D. Gestational diabetes mellitus: management guidelines. The Australasian Diabetes in Pregnancy Society. Med J Austral 1998;169:93-7.

8. Oats JJ. Fourth International Workshop-Conference on Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Overview and commentary on first session. Diabetes Care 1998;21:B58-9.

9. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for diabetes mellitus. In: Guide to Clinical Preventive Services, 2nd. ed. Washington, DC: Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, U.S. Government Printing Office; 1996:193-208.

10. American Diabetes Association. Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care 2002;25 (suppl 1):S94-6.

11. Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. Screening for gestational diabetes mellitus. Can Med Assoc J 1992;147:435-43.

12. Wilkins-Haug L, Horton JA, Cruess DF, Frigoletto FD. Antepartum screening in the office-based practice: findings from the collaborative ambulatory research network. Obstet Gynecol 1996;88:483-9.

13. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Diabetes and Pregnancy. Washington, DC. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Technical Bulletin No. 200 1994.

14. Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, et al. Current methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med 2001;2 (suppl 3):21-35.

15. Brody S, Harris RP, Krasnov C, Lohr KN, Sutton S, Whitener L. Screening for Gestational Diabetes. Systematic Evidence Review. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

16. Sacks DA, Greenspoon JS, Abu-Fadil S, Henry HM, Wolde-Tsadik G , Yao JFF. Toward universal criteria for gestational diabetes: the 75-gram glucose tolerance test in pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995;172:607-14.

17. Sermer M, Naylor DC, Gare DJ, et al. Impact of increasing carbohydrate intolerance on maternal-fetal outcomes in 3637 women without gestational diabetes: The Toronto Tri-Hospital Gestational Diabetes Project. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995;173:146-56.

18. Langer O, Levy J, Brustman L, Anyaegbunam A, Merkatz R, Divon M. Glycemic control in gestational diabetes mellitus—how tight is tight enough: small for gestational age vs. large for gestational age? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;161:646-53.

19. Naylor CD. Diagnosing gestational diabetes: is the gold standard valid? Diabetes Care 1989;12:565-72.

20. Garner P, Okun N, Keely E, et al. A randomized controlled trial of strict glycemic control and tertiary level obstetric care versus routine obstetric care in the management of gestational diabetes: a pilot study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997;177:190-5.

21. O'Sullivan JB, Gellis SS, Dandrow RV, Tenney BO. The potential diabetic and her treatment in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1966;27:683-9.

22. Naylor CD, Sermer M, Chen E, Sykora K. Cesarean delivery in relation to birth weight and gestational glucose tolerance: pathophysiology or practice style? Toronto Tri-Hospital Gestational Diabetes Investigators. JAMA 1996;275:1165-70.

23. Lu G, Rouse D, Dubard M, Cliver S. The impact of lower threshold values for the detection of gestational diabetes mellitus. Obstet Gynecol 2000;95:S44.

24. Beischer NA, Wein P, Sheedy MT, Steffen B. Identification and treatment of women with hyperglycaemia diagnosed during pregnancy can significantly reduce perinatal mortality rates. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 1996;36:239-47.

25. Pettitt DJ, Knowler WC, Baird HR, Bennett PH. Gestational diabetes: infant and maternal complications of pregnancy in relation to third-trimester glucose tolerance in Pima Indians. Diabetes Care 1980;3:458-64.

26. Adams KM, Li H, Nelson RL, Ogburn PL Jr, Danilenko-Dixon DR. Sequelae of unrecognized gestational diabetes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;178:1321-32.

27. Li DFH, Wong VCW, O'Hoy KMKY, Ma HK. Is treatment needed for mild impairment of glucose in pregnancy? A randomized controlled trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1987;94:851-4.

28. Gross TL, Sokol RJ, Williams T, Thompson K. Shoulder dystocia: a fetal-physician risk. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987;156:1408-18.

29. Kjos SL, Schaefer-Graf U, Sardesi S, et al. A randomized controlled trial using glycemic plus fetal ultrasound parameters versus glycemic parameters to determine insulin therapy in gestational diabetes with fasting hyperglycemia. Diabetes Care 2001;24:1904-10.

30. Lipscomb KR, Gregory K, Shaw K. The outcome of macrosomic infants weighing at least 4500 grams: Los Angeles County + University of Southern California experience. Obstet Gynecol 1995;85:558-64.

31. Berard J, Dufour P, Vinatier D, et al. Fetal macrosomia: risk factors and outcome. A study of the outcome concerning 100 cases >4500 g. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1998;77:51-9.

32. Morrison JC, Sanders JR, Magann EF, Wiser WL. The diagnosis and management of dystocia of the shoulder. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1992;175:515-22.

33. Hardy AE. Birth injuries of the brachial plexus: incidence and prognosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1981;63-B:98-101.

34. Ventura SJ, Martin JA, Curtin SC, Mathews TJ, Park MM. Births: final data for 1998. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2000;48:1-100.

35. Perlow JH, Wigton T, Hart J, Strassner HT, Nageotte MP, Wolk BM. Birth trauma. A five-year review of incidence and associated perinatal factors. J Reprod Med 19 96;41:754-60.

36. Oppenheim WL, Davis A, Growdon WA, Dorey FJ, Davlin LB. Clavicle fractures in the newborn. Clin Orthop 1990;250:176-80.

37. Chez RA, Carlan S, Greenberg SL, Spellacy WN. Fractured clavicle is an unavoidable event. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;171:797-8.

38. Xiong X, Saunders LD, Wang FL, Demianczuk NN. Gestational diabetes mellitus: prevalence, risk factors, maternal and infant outcomes. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2001;75:221-8.

39. Svare JA, Hansen BB, Molsted-Pedersen L. Perinatal complications in women with gestational diabetes mellitus. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2001;80:899-904.

40. Langer O. Management of gestational diabetes. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2000;43:106-15.

41. Langer O. Maternal glycemic criteria for insulin therapy in gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 1998;21(suppl 2):B91-8.

42. Langer O, Conway D, Berkus M, Xenakis E, Gonzales O. A comparison of glyburide and insulin on women with gestational diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 2000;343:1134-8.

43. Ogata E. Perinatal morbidity in offspring of diabetic mothers. Diabetes Rev 1995;3:652-7.

44. Hod M, Rabinerson D, Peled Y. Gestational diabetes mellitus: is it a clinical entity? Diabetes Reviews 1995;3:602-13.

45. Whitaker RC, Pepe MS, Seidel KD, Wright JA, Knopp RH. Gestational diabetes and the risk of offspring obesity. Pediatrics 1998;101:E9.

46. Beischer NA, Wein P, Sheedy MT, Werther GA, Gold H. Maternal glucose tolerance and obstetric complications in pregnancies in which the offspring developed type I diabetes. Diabetes Care 1994;17:832-4.

47. Vohr BR, McGarvey ST, Tucker R. Effects of maternal gestational diabetes on offspring adiposity at 4-7 years of age. Diabetes Care 1999;22:1284-91.

48. Persson B, Gentz J, Moller E. followup of children of insulin dependent (type I) and gestational diabetic mothers. Growth pattern, glucose tolerance, insulin response, and HLA types. Acta Paediatr Scand 1984;73:778-84.

49. Lu GC, Rouse DJ, Dubard M, Cliver S, Kimberlin D, Hauth JC. The effect of the increasing prevalence of maternal obesity on perinatal morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:845-9.

50. Rouse DJ, Owen J. Prophylactic cesarean delivery for fetal macrosomia diagnosed by means of ultrasonography: A Faustian bargain? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181:332-8.

51. Mondalou HD, Dorchester WL, Thorosian A, Freeman RK. Macrosomia: maternal, fetal, and neonatal implications. Obstet Gynecol 1980;55:420-4.

52. Spellacy WN, Miller S, Winegar A, Peterson PQ. Macrosomia: maternal characteristics and infant complications. Obstet Gynecol 1985;66:158-61.

53. Menticoglou SM, Manning FA, Morrison I, Harman CR. Must macrosomic fetuses be delivered by cesarean section? A review of outcome for 786 babies greater than or equal to 4,500 grams. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1992;32:100-3.

54. Lazer S, Biale Y, Mazor M, Lewenthal H, Insler V. Complications associated with the macrosomic fetus. J Reprod Med 1986;31:501-5.

55. Jensen DM, Sorensen B, Feilberg-Jorgensen N, Westergaardt JG, Beck-Neilsen H. Maternal and perinatal outcomes in 143 Danish women with gestational diabetes mellitus and 143 controls with a similar risk profile. Diabet Med 2000;17:281-6.

56. Schaffir JA, Lockwood CJ, Lapinski R, Yoon L, Alvarez M. Incidence of pregnancy-induced hypertension among gestational diabetics. Am J Perinatol 1995;12:252-4.

57. Suhonen L, Teramo K. Hypertension and pre-eclampsia in women with gestational glucose intolerance. Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica 1993;72:269-72.

58. Nachum Z, Ben-Shlomo I, Weiner E, Shalev E. Twice daily versus four times daily insulin dose regimens for diabetes in pregnancy: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 19 99;319:1223-7.

59. de Veciana M, Major CA, Morgan MA, et al. Postprandial versus preprandial blood glucose monitoring in women with gestational diabetes mellitus requiring insulin therapy. N Engl J Med 1995;333:1237-41.

60. Persson B, Strangenberg M, Hansson U, Norlander E. Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) comparative evaluation of two treatment regimens, diet versus insulin and diet. Diabetes 1985;11:101-5.

61. Naylor C.D., Sermer M, Chen E, Farine D. Selective screening for gestational diabetes mellitus. Toronto Tri-Hospital Gestational Diabetes Project Investigators. New Engl J Med 1997;337:1591-6.

62. O'Sullivan JB. Diabetes mellitus after GDM. Diabetes 1991;40:131-5.

63. Harris R, Donahue K, Rathore S, Frame P, Woolf S, Lohr KN. Screening adults for type 2 diabetes: a review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

64. World Health Organization. Definition, Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus and Its Complications. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1999.

65. National Diabetes Data Group. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and other categories of glucose intolerance. Diabetes 1979;28:1039-57.

66. American Diabetes Association. Gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 2002;25:S94-6.

67. Metzger BE, Coustan DR. Summary and recommendations of the Fourth International Workshop- Conference on Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. The Organizing Committee. Diabetes Care 1998;21(suppl 2):B161-7.

68. Deerochanawong C, Putiyanun C, Wongsuryrat M, Serirat S, Jinayon P. Comparison of National Diabetes Data Group and World Health Organization criteria for detecting gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetologia 1996;39:1070-3.

69. Pettitt DJ, Bennett PH, Hanson RL, Narayan KMV, Knowler WC. Comparison of World Health Organization and National Diabetes Data Group procedures to detect abnormalities of glucose tolerance during pregnancy. Diabetes Care 1994;17:1264-8.

70. Coustan DR. Screening and testing for gestational diabetes mellitus. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 1996;23:125-36.

71. Moses RG, Griffiths RD. Can a diagnosis of gestational diabetes be an advantage to the outcome of pregnancy? J Society Gynecol Investi 1995;2:523-5.

72. Conway DL, Langer O. Elective delivery of infants with macrosomia in diabetic women: reduced shoulder dystocia versus increased cesarean deliveries. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;178:922-5.

73. Harlass FE, Brady K, Read JA. Reproducibility of the oral glucose tolerance test in pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991;164:564-8.

74. McDonald GW, Fisher GF, Burnham C. Reproducibility of the oral glucose tolerance test. Diabetes 19 65;14:473-80.

75. Troxler RG, Trabal JF, Malcolm CL. Interpretation of an abnormal glucose tolerance test encountered during multiphasic laboratory screening. Aviat Space Environ Med 19 75;46:729-35.

76. Olefsky JM, Reaven GM. Insulin and glucose responses to identical oral glucose tolerance tests performed forty-eight hours apart. Diabetes 1974;23:449-53.

77. Carpenter MW, Coustan DR. Criteria for screening tests for gestational diabetes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982;144:768-73.

78. Sermer M, Naylor CD, Gare DJ, et al. Impact of time since last meal on the gestational glucose challenge test. The Toronto Tri-Hospital Gestational Diabetes Project. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;171:607-16.

79. Landon MB, Gabbe ST, Sachs L. Management of diabetes mellitus and pregnancy: a survey of obstetricians and maternal-fetal specialists. Obstet Gynecol 1978;51:306-10.

80. Bancroft K, Tuffnell DJ, Mason GC, Rogerson LJ, Mansfield M. A randomised controlled pilot study of the management of gestational impaired glucose tolerance. Br J Obstet Gynecol 2000;107:959-63.

81. Li DF, Wong VC, O'Hoy KM, Yeung CY, Ma HK. Is treatment needed for mild impairment of glucose tolerance in pregnancy? A randomized controlled trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1987;94:851-4.

82. Langer O, Anyaegbunam A, Brustman L, Divon M. Management of women with one abnormal oral glucose tolerance test value reduces adverse outcome in pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;161:593-9.

83. Buchanan TS, Kjos SL, Montoro MN, et al. Use of fetal ultrasound to select metabolic therapy for pregnancies complicated by mild gestational diabetes. Diabetes Care 1994;17:275-83.

84. Walkinshaw S. Dietary regulation for 'gestational diabetes'. 2000. Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews 2000;(2):CD000070.

85. Langer O, Rodriguez DA, Xenakis EM, McFarland MB, Berkus MD, Arrendondo F. Intensified versus conventional management of gestational diabetes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 19 94;170:1036-46; discussion 1046-7.

86. Drexel H, Bichler A, Sailer S, et al. Prevention of perinatal morbidity by tight metabolic control in gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 1988;11:761-8.

87. Langer O, Brustman L, Anyaegbunam A, Mazze R. The significance of one abnormal glucose tolerance test value on adverse outcome in pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987;157:758-63.

88. Shushan A, Ezra Y, Samueloff A. Early treatment of gestational diabetes reduces the rate of fetal macrosomia. Am J Perinatol 1997;14:253-6.

89. Kalkhoff RK. Therapeutic results of insulin therapy in gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetes 19 85;34 Suppl 2:97-100.

90. Coustan DR, Imarah J. Prophylactic insulin treatment of gestational diabetes reduces the incidence of macrosomia, operative delivery, and birth trauma. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984;150:836-42.

91. Gyves MT, Rodman HM, Little AB, Fanaroff AA, Merkatz IR. A modern approach to management of pregnant diabetics: a two-year analysis of perinatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 19 77;128:606-16.

92. Landon MB, Gabbe SG. Antepartum fetal surveillance in gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetes 19 85;34(suppl 2):50-4.

93. Girz BA, Divon MY, Merkatz IR. Sudden fetal death in women with well-controlled, intensively monitored gestational diabetes. J Perinatol 1992;12:229-33.

94. Kjos SL, Leung A, Henry OA. Antepartum surveillance in diabetic pregnancies: predictors of fetal distress in labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995;173:1532-9.

95. Johnson JM, Lange IR, Harman CR, Torchia MG, Manning FA. Biophysical profile scoring in the management of the diabetic pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1988;72:841-6.

96. Rossi G, Somigliana E, Moschetta M, Bottani B, Barbieri M, Vignali M. Adequate timing fetal ultrasound to guide metabolic therapy in mild gestational diabetes mellitus. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2000;79:649-54.

97. Kerbel D, Glazier R, Holzapfel S, Yeung M, Lofsky S. Adverse effects of screening for gestational diabetes: a prospective cohort study in Toronto, Canada. J Med Screen 1997;4:128-32.

98. Sjogren B, Robeus N, Hansson U. Gestational diabetes: a case-control study of women's experience of pregnancy, health and the child. J Psychosomatic Res 1994;38:815-22.

99. Langer N, Langer O. Emotional adjustment to diagnosis and intensified treatment of gestational diabetes. Obstet Gynecol 1994;84:329-34.

100. Spirito A, Williams C, Ruggiero L, Bond A, McGarvey ST, Coustan D. Psychological impact of the diagnosis of gestational diabetes. Obstet Gynecol 1989;73:562-6.

101. Feig DS, Chen E, Naylor CD. Self-perceived health status of women three to five years after the diagnosis of gestational diabetes: A survey of cases and matched controls. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;178:386-93.

102. Knopp RH, Magee MS, Raisys V, Benedetti T, Bonet B. Hypocaloric diets and ketogenesis in the management of obese gestational diabetic women. J Am Coll Nutr 1991;10:649-67.

103. Kolderup LB, Laros RK Jr, Musci TJ. Incidence of persistent birth injury in macrosomic infants: association with mode of delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997;177:37-41.

104. Hatem M, Dennis KJ. A random plasma glucose method for screening abnormal glucose tolerance in pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1987;94:213-6.

Return to Contents

Notes

Author Affiliations

[a] Brody: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
[b] Harris: Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
[c] Lohr: RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina and UNC School of Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC.

Copyright and Source Information

This document is in the public domain within the United States. For information on reprinting, contact Randie Siegel, Director, Division of Printing and Electronic Publishing, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Suite 501, 2101 East Jefferson Street, Rockville, MD 20852.

Requests for linking or to incorporate content in electronic resources should be sent to: info@ahrq.gov

Source: Brody SC, Harris RH, Lohr K. Screening for Gestational Diabetes: A Summary of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 101:380-92.

Return to Contents

Reprints

Available online through the the AHRQ Web site at http://www.preventiveservices.ahrq.gov; reprints can be obtained from the AHRQ Publications Clearinghouse (call 1-800-358-9295; E-mail ahrqpubs@ahrq.gov).

Return to Contents

Current as of February 2003

Internet Citation:

Brody SC, Harris RH, Lohr K. Screening for Gestational Diabetes: A Summary of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. February 2003. Originally in Obstet Gynecol 2003;101:393-95. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/gdm/gdmsum.htm

Seth C. Brody, M.D.^a; Russell Harris, M.D., M.P.H.^b; Kathleen Lohr, Ph.D.^c

The authors of this article are responsible for its contents, including any clinical or treatment recommendations. No statement in this article should be construed as an official position from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Address correspondence to: Seth Brody, MD; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology; University of North Carolina; Wake Area Health Education Center; 3024 New Bern Avenue, Suite 306; Raleigh, NC 27610-11255; E-mail: sbrody@med.unc.edu

From the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
February 2003
http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/gdm/gdmsum.htm

Also see

other webpages about gestational diabetes

Advertisements

[Top]

Webpage new at the DiabetesMonitor 06Apr2005

Send us an e-mail at info@diabetesmonitor.com