Cargando…

Comparison of the Screening Tests for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus between “One-Step” and “Two-Step” Methods among Thai Pregnant Women

OBJECTIVE: To compare the prevalence and pregnancy outcomes of GDM between those screened by the “one-step” (75 gm GTT) and “two-step” (100 gm GTT) methods. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted on singleton pregnancies at low or average risk of GDM. All were screened between 24 and 28 weeks, u...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Luewan, Suchaya, Bootchaingam, Phenphan, Tongsong, Theera
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5822918/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29581725
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/1521794
_version_ 1783301783456579584
author Luewan, Suchaya
Bootchaingam, Phenphan
Tongsong, Theera
author_facet Luewan, Suchaya
Bootchaingam, Phenphan
Tongsong, Theera
author_sort Luewan, Suchaya
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare the prevalence and pregnancy outcomes of GDM between those screened by the “one-step” (75 gm GTT) and “two-step” (100 gm GTT) methods. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted on singleton pregnancies at low or average risk of GDM. All were screened between 24 and 28 weeks, using the one-step or two-step method based on patients' preference. The primary outcome was prevalence of GDM, and secondary outcomes included birthweight, gestational age, rates of preterm birth, small/large-for-gestational age, low Apgar scores, cesarean section, and pregnancy-induced hypertension. RESULTS: A total of 648 women were screened: 278 in the one-step group and 370 in the two-step group. The prevalence of GDM was significantly higher in the one-step group; 32.0% versus 10.3%. Baseline characteristics and pregnancy outcomes in both groups were comparable. However, mean birthweight was significantly higher among pregnancies with GDM diagnosed by the two-step approach (3204 ± 555 versus 3009 ± 666 g; p=0.022). Likewise, the rate of large-for-date tended to be higher in the two-step group, but was not significant. CONCLUSION: The one-step approach is associated with very high prevalence of GDM among Thai population, without clear evidence of better outcomes. Thus, this approach may not be appropriate for screening in a busy antenatal care clinic like our setting or other centers in developing countries.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5822918
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58229182018-03-26 Comparison of the Screening Tests for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus between “One-Step” and “Two-Step” Methods among Thai Pregnant Women Luewan, Suchaya Bootchaingam, Phenphan Tongsong, Theera Obstet Gynecol Int Research Article OBJECTIVE: To compare the prevalence and pregnancy outcomes of GDM between those screened by the “one-step” (75 gm GTT) and “two-step” (100 gm GTT) methods. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted on singleton pregnancies at low or average risk of GDM. All were screened between 24 and 28 weeks, using the one-step or two-step method based on patients' preference. The primary outcome was prevalence of GDM, and secondary outcomes included birthweight, gestational age, rates of preterm birth, small/large-for-gestational age, low Apgar scores, cesarean section, and pregnancy-induced hypertension. RESULTS: A total of 648 women were screened: 278 in the one-step group and 370 in the two-step group. The prevalence of GDM was significantly higher in the one-step group; 32.0% versus 10.3%. Baseline characteristics and pregnancy outcomes in both groups were comparable. However, mean birthweight was significantly higher among pregnancies with GDM diagnosed by the two-step approach (3204 ± 555 versus 3009 ± 666 g; p=0.022). Likewise, the rate of large-for-date tended to be higher in the two-step group, but was not significant. CONCLUSION: The one-step approach is associated with very high prevalence of GDM among Thai population, without clear evidence of better outcomes. Thus, this approach may not be appropriate for screening in a busy antenatal care clinic like our setting or other centers in developing countries. Hindawi 2018-02-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5822918/ /pubmed/29581725 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/1521794 Text en Copyright © 2018 Suchaya Luewan et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Luewan, Suchaya
Bootchaingam, Phenphan
Tongsong, Theera
Comparison of the Screening Tests for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus between “One-Step” and “Two-Step” Methods among Thai Pregnant Women
title Comparison of the Screening Tests for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus between “One-Step” and “Two-Step” Methods among Thai Pregnant Women
title_full Comparison of the Screening Tests for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus between “One-Step” and “Two-Step” Methods among Thai Pregnant Women
title_fullStr Comparison of the Screening Tests for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus between “One-Step” and “Two-Step” Methods among Thai Pregnant Women
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the Screening Tests for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus between “One-Step” and “Two-Step” Methods among Thai Pregnant Women
title_short Comparison of the Screening Tests for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus between “One-Step” and “Two-Step” Methods among Thai Pregnant Women
title_sort comparison of the screening tests for gestational diabetes mellitus between “one-step” and “two-step” methods among thai pregnant women
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5822918/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29581725
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/1521794
work_keys_str_mv AT luewansuchaya comparisonofthescreeningtestsforgestationaldiabetesmellitusbetweenonestepandtwostepmethodsamongthaipregnantwomen
AT bootchaingamphenphan comparisonofthescreeningtestsforgestationaldiabetesmellitusbetweenonestepandtwostepmethodsamongthaipregnantwomen
AT tongsongtheera comparisonofthescreeningtestsforgestationaldiabetesmellitusbetweenonestepandtwostepmethodsamongthaipregnantwomen