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...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2018-01-01
|
| Series: | Obstetrics and Gynecology International |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/1521794 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832560640155189248 |
|---|---|
| author | Suchaya Luewan Phenphan Bootchaingam Theera Tongsong |
| author_facet | Suchaya Luewan Phenphan Bootchaingam Theera Tongsong |
| author_sort | Suchaya Luewan |
| collection | DOAJ |
| 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 | Article |
| id | doaj-art-faa41f265b1044d2b3c462acc37ed7aa |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1687-9589 1687-9597 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2018-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Obstetrics and Gynecology International |
| spelling | doaj-art-faa41f265b1044d2b3c462acc37ed7aa2025-02-03T01:27:09ZengWileyObstetrics and Gynecology International1687-95891687-95972018-01-01201810.1155/2018/15217941521794Comparison of the Screening Tests for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus between “One-Step” and “Two-Step” Methods among Thai Pregnant WomenSuchaya Luewan0Phenphan Bootchaingam1Theera Tongsong2Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, ThailandDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, ThailandDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, ThailandObjective. 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.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/1521794 |
| spellingShingle | Suchaya Luewan Phenphan Bootchaingam Theera Tongsong Comparison of the Screening Tests for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus between “One-Step” and “Two-Step” Methods among Thai Pregnant Women Obstetrics and Gynecology International |
| 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 |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/1521794 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT suchayaluewan comparisonofthescreeningtestsforgestationaldiabetesmellitusbetweenonestepandtwostepmethodsamongthaipregnantwomen AT phenphanbootchaingam comparisonofthescreeningtestsforgestationaldiabetesmellitusbetweenonestepandtwostepmethodsamongthaipregnantwomen AT theeratongsong comparisonofthescreeningtestsforgestationaldiabetesmellitusbetweenonestepandtwostepmethodsamongthaipregnantwomen |