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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |