There is a debate about whether universal or risk factors-based screening is most appropriate for gestational diabetes diagnosis. The aim of our retrospective study was to compare in our population the universal screening test recommended by the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) panel and the American Diabetes Association (ADA) versus the selective screening proposed by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines (NICE) but modified by the Italian National Institute of Health. From May 2010 to October 2011 all consecutive pregnant women were screened for gestational diabetes according to the IADPSG's panel criteria, while all the risk factors for each patient were registered. Of the 1015 pregnant women included in the study, 113 (11%) were diagnosed with gestational diabetes and 26 (23%) of them would not have been identified by the selective screening proposed by the Italian National Institute of Health. However, all the risk factors considered by the selective screening revealed a good predictive role except for maternal age ≥ 35 years (OR: 0.98). In the group without the risk factors considered, it was reported the predictive role for gestational diabetes of prepregnancy BMI and nulliparity. The selective risk factors-based screening proposed by the Italian National Institute of Health has detected 77% of gestational diabetes cases in our population, sparing the oral glucose tolerance test for more than 40% of pregnant women at the same time. More information on the clinical impact of this choice could be obtained by a strict analysis of treatment, perinatal outcome and follow-up of an adequate sample size of "missed" gestational diabetes.

Italian risk factor-based screening for gestational diabetes.

CORRADO, Francesco;SANTAMARIA, ANGELO;D'ANNA, Rosario;DI BENEDETTO, Antonino
2014-01-01

Abstract

There is a debate about whether universal or risk factors-based screening is most appropriate for gestational diabetes diagnosis. The aim of our retrospective study was to compare in our population the universal screening test recommended by the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) panel and the American Diabetes Association (ADA) versus the selective screening proposed by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines (NICE) but modified by the Italian National Institute of Health. From May 2010 to October 2011 all consecutive pregnant women were screened for gestational diabetes according to the IADPSG's panel criteria, while all the risk factors for each patient were registered. Of the 1015 pregnant women included in the study, 113 (11%) were diagnosed with gestational diabetes and 26 (23%) of them would not have been identified by the selective screening proposed by the Italian National Institute of Health. However, all the risk factors considered by the selective screening revealed a good predictive role except for maternal age ≥ 35 years (OR: 0.98). In the group without the risk factors considered, it was reported the predictive role for gestational diabetes of prepregnancy BMI and nulliparity. The selective risk factors-based screening proposed by the Italian National Institute of Health has detected 77% of gestational diabetes cases in our population, sparing the oral glucose tolerance test for more than 40% of pregnant women at the same time. More information on the clinical impact of this choice could be obtained by a strict analysis of treatment, perinatal outcome and follow-up of an adequate sample size of "missed" gestational diabetes.
2014
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11570/2913968
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 5
  • Scopus 22
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 22
social impact