妊娠期糖尿病标准与统一标准的不等同性。

IF 1.4 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Ahmad Hamdan, Amna Zar, Fatima R Alsharif, Mohannad N AbuHaweeleh, Nouran Alwisi, Hanan Khudadad, Khalid Bashir, Stephen Beer, Mohammed Bashir, Abdul-Badi Abou-Samra, Suhail A R Doi
{"title":"妊娠期糖尿病标准与统一标准的不等同性。","authors":"Ahmad Hamdan, Amna Zar, Fatima R Alsharif, Mohannad N AbuHaweeleh, Nouran Alwisi, Hanan Khudadad, Khalid Bashir, Stephen Beer, Mohammed Bashir, Abdul-Badi Abou-Samra, Suhail A R Doi","doi":"10.3121/cmr.2025.1974","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> There are two types of criteria for diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The first is based on measurement of three values on the glucose tolerance test (GTT) and making a diagnosis when any value is abnormal (individual time-point criterion). The second is based on creating a weighted average of the three values and using the average to split glycemic status into normal gestational glycemia (NGG), impaired gestational glycemia (IGG), gestational diabetes (GDM), or high-risk gestational diabetes (hGDM) (unified criterion). There is no information currently regarding how these two criteria relate to each other in the diagnosis of GDM. This study aimed to make this comparison.<b>Design:</b> Cross-sectional study.<b>Setting:</b> Publicly available data on a cohort of women in pregnancy.<b>Participants:</b> Pregnant women from the cohort.<b>Methods:</b> The cross-classification of diagnosis by two criteria was evaluated. The individual time-point criterion had a binary outcome (GDM yes/no), while the unified criterion had the four aforementioned outcomes.<b>Results:</b> Within the low risk (non-GDM) category by the individual time-point criterion, 1 in 85 women would have been deemed at high risk by the unified criterion. More importantly, within the high risk (GDM) category by the individual time-point criterion, 1 in 2 women would have been deemed at low risk by the unified criterion.<b>Conclusion:</b> The standard criterion is not equivalent to the unified criterion in terms of risk estimation. This is important as the unified criterion correlates with area under the GTT curve known to be associated with glucose excursion and is predictive of the net effect of insulin resistance and beta-cell function.</p>","PeriodicalId":47429,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Medicine & Research","volume":"23 2","pages":"53-59"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12352914/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Non-equivalence of Standard and Unified Criteria for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.\",\"authors\":\"Ahmad Hamdan, Amna Zar, Fatima R Alsharif, Mohannad N AbuHaweeleh, Nouran Alwisi, Hanan Khudadad, Khalid Bashir, Stephen Beer, Mohammed Bashir, Abdul-Badi Abou-Samra, Suhail A R Doi\",\"doi\":\"10.3121/cmr.2025.1974\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> There are two types of criteria for diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The first is based on measurement of three values on the glucose tolerance test (GTT) and making a diagnosis when any value is abnormal (individual time-point criterion). The second is based on creating a weighted average of the three values and using the average to split glycemic status into normal gestational glycemia (NGG), impaired gestational glycemia (IGG), gestational diabetes (GDM), or high-risk gestational diabetes (hGDM) (unified criterion). There is no information currently regarding how these two criteria relate to each other in the diagnosis of GDM. This study aimed to make this comparison.<b>Design:</b> Cross-sectional study.<b>Setting:</b> Publicly available data on a cohort of women in pregnancy.<b>Participants:</b> Pregnant women from the cohort.<b>Methods:</b> The cross-classification of diagnosis by two criteria was evaluated. The individual time-point criterion had a binary outcome (GDM yes/no), while the unified criterion had the four aforementioned outcomes.<b>Results:</b> Within the low risk (non-GDM) category by the individual time-point criterion, 1 in 85 women would have been deemed at high risk by the unified criterion. More importantly, within the high risk (GDM) category by the individual time-point criterion, 1 in 2 women would have been deemed at low risk by the unified criterion.<b>Conclusion:</b> The standard criterion is not equivalent to the unified criterion in terms of risk estimation. This is important as the unified criterion correlates with area under the GTT curve known to be associated with glucose excursion and is predictive of the net effect of insulin resistance and beta-cell function.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47429,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Medicine & Research\",\"volume\":\"23 2\",\"pages\":\"53-59\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12352914/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Medicine & Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3121/cmr.2025.1974\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Medicine & Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3121/cmr.2025.1974","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:诊断妊娠期糖尿病(GDM)有两种标准。第一种是基于葡萄糖耐量试验(GTT)的三个值的测量,当任何值异常时做出诊断(个体时间点标准)。第二种方法是建立三个值的加权平均值,并使用平均值将血糖状态分为正常妊娠血糖(NGG),妊娠血糖受损(IGG),妊娠糖尿病(GDM)或高危妊娠糖尿病(hGDM)(统一标准)。目前还没有关于这两个标准在GDM诊断中的相互关系的信息。本研究旨在进行这种比较。设计:横断面研究。背景:一组孕期妇女的公开数据。参与者:队列中的孕妇。方法:对两种诊断标准的交叉分类进行评价。单个时间点标准有一个二元结果(GDM是/否),而统一标准有上述四个结果。结果:根据个体时间点标准,在低风险(非gdm)类别中,按照统一标准,85名女性中有1名被视为高风险。更重要的是,根据个人时间点标准,在高风险(GDM)类别中,根据统一标准,每2名女性中就有1名被视为低风险。结论:在风险评价方面,标准准则不等同于统一准则。这一点很重要,因为统一的标准与已知与葡萄糖漂移相关的GTT曲线下的面积相关,并且可以预测胰岛素抵抗和β细胞功能的净效应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Non-equivalence of Standard and Unified Criteria for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.

Objective: There are two types of criteria for diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The first is based on measurement of three values on the glucose tolerance test (GTT) and making a diagnosis when any value is abnormal (individual time-point criterion). The second is based on creating a weighted average of the three values and using the average to split glycemic status into normal gestational glycemia (NGG), impaired gestational glycemia (IGG), gestational diabetes (GDM), or high-risk gestational diabetes (hGDM) (unified criterion). There is no information currently regarding how these two criteria relate to each other in the diagnosis of GDM. This study aimed to make this comparison.Design: Cross-sectional study.Setting: Publicly available data on a cohort of women in pregnancy.Participants: Pregnant women from the cohort.Methods: The cross-classification of diagnosis by two criteria was evaluated. The individual time-point criterion had a binary outcome (GDM yes/no), while the unified criterion had the four aforementioned outcomes.Results: Within the low risk (non-GDM) category by the individual time-point criterion, 1 in 85 women would have been deemed at high risk by the unified criterion. More importantly, within the high risk (GDM) category by the individual time-point criterion, 1 in 2 women would have been deemed at low risk by the unified criterion.Conclusion: The standard criterion is not equivalent to the unified criterion in terms of risk estimation. This is important as the unified criterion correlates with area under the GTT curve known to be associated with glucose excursion and is predictive of the net effect of insulin resistance and beta-cell function.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Medicine & Research
Clinical Medicine & Research MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
7.10%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Clinical Medicine & Research is a peer reviewed publication of original scientific medical research that is relevant to a broad audience of medical researchers and healthcare professionals. Articles are published quarterly in the following topics: -Medicine -Clinical Research -Evidence-based Medicine -Preventive Medicine -Translational Medicine -Rural Health -Case Reports -Epidemiology -Basic science -History of Medicine -The Art of Medicine -Non-Clinical Aspects of Medicine & Science
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信