按照WHO、ADA和IADPSG标准应用75 g口服糖耐量试验筛查和诊断妊娠期糖尿病

M. Pineda-Cortel, Marlo Eduardo M Manalo, Russel Ray C Canivel, Reynaldo S Matias, A. Dizon, Manuel Nikko S Bacani, Juan Severino B Dalmacio
{"title":"按照WHO、ADA和IADPSG标准应用75 g口服糖耐量试验筛查和诊断妊娠期糖尿病","authors":"M. Pineda-Cortel, Marlo Eduardo M Manalo, Russel Ray C Canivel, Reynaldo S Matias, A. Dizon, Manuel Nikko S Bacani, Juan Severino B Dalmacio","doi":"10.4172/2155-6156.1000799","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: We aim to compare the World Health Organization (WHO), American Diabetes Association (ADA), and the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria to diagnose gestational diabetes mellitus in Metro Manila, Philippines.Materials and methods: We used a retrospective cohort study design and reviewed 75-g oral glucose tolerance test results of 919 pregnant women at selected hospital-based and free-standing laboratories in Metro Manila. We used three criteria for diagnosing GDM namely, WHO (fasting: 7.0 mmol/L; 2-hour value: 11.1 mmol/L), ADA (fasting: 5.28 mmol/L; 1-hour: 10 mmol/L; 8.61 mmol/L), or IADPSG (fasting: 5.11 mmol/L; 1 hour: 10 mmol/L; 2-hour value: 8.5 mmol/L) and computed and compared their diagnostic sensitivity, diagnostic specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV).Results: Following the WHO criteria, we found 48 GDM patients; using ADA criteria, 150 have GDM; and using IADPSG criteria, 269 women have GDM. Applying the IADPSG criteria to the population would increase the rate of GDM from 5.22% (WHO) to 16.32% (ADA) to 29.27%. Giving the highest prevalence rate, we used IADPSG criteria as the standard to compute for diagnostic sensitivity, diagnostic specificity, NPV and PPV. Results showed that the diagnostic sensitivity of OGTT using ADA criteria is 55.97%, which is higher than using the WHO criteria (17.91%). ADA criteria also has a higher NPV of 84.66% as compared with WHO criteria NPV of 74.74%. In terms of diagnostic specificity, both ADA and WHO criteria have 100% specificity.Conclusions: The use of IADPSG criteria instead of ADA and WHO criteria would result in a considerable increase in the prevalence rate of GDM, which would lessen cases of misdiagnosis. Further, standardizing the criteria for diagnosis will prevent pregnancy complications due to GDM. A single global criterion for the diagnosis of GDM is a must to strengthen its diagnosis and protect both the mother and the baby from complications.","PeriodicalId":15597,"journal":{"name":"Journal of diabetes & metabolism","volume":"1 1","pages":"1-4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Screening and Diagnosis of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Using 75-g Oral Glucose Tolerance Test Following the WHO, ADA, and IADPSG Criteria\",\"authors\":\"M. Pineda-Cortel, Marlo Eduardo M Manalo, Russel Ray C Canivel, Reynaldo S Matias, A. Dizon, Manuel Nikko S Bacani, Juan Severino B Dalmacio\",\"doi\":\"10.4172/2155-6156.1000799\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aim: We aim to compare the World Health Organization (WHO), American Diabetes Association (ADA), and the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria to diagnose gestational diabetes mellitus in Metro Manila, Philippines.Materials and methods: We used a retrospective cohort study design and reviewed 75-g oral glucose tolerance test results of 919 pregnant women at selected hospital-based and free-standing laboratories in Metro Manila. We used three criteria for diagnosing GDM namely, WHO (fasting: 7.0 mmol/L; 2-hour value: 11.1 mmol/L), ADA (fasting: 5.28 mmol/L; 1-hour: 10 mmol/L; 8.61 mmol/L), or IADPSG (fasting: 5.11 mmol/L; 1 hour: 10 mmol/L; 2-hour value: 8.5 mmol/L) and computed and compared their diagnostic sensitivity, diagnostic specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV).Results: Following the WHO criteria, we found 48 GDM patients; using ADA criteria, 150 have GDM; and using IADPSG criteria, 269 women have GDM. Applying the IADPSG criteria to the population would increase the rate of GDM from 5.22% (WHO) to 16.32% (ADA) to 29.27%. Giving the highest prevalence rate, we used IADPSG criteria as the standard to compute for diagnostic sensitivity, diagnostic specificity, NPV and PPV. Results showed that the diagnostic sensitivity of OGTT using ADA criteria is 55.97%, which is higher than using the WHO criteria (17.91%). ADA criteria also has a higher NPV of 84.66% as compared with WHO criteria NPV of 74.74%. In terms of diagnostic specificity, both ADA and WHO criteria have 100% specificity.Conclusions: The use of IADPSG criteria instead of ADA and WHO criteria would result in a considerable increase in the prevalence rate of GDM, which would lessen cases of misdiagnosis. Further, standardizing the criteria for diagnosis will prevent pregnancy complications due to GDM. A single global criterion for the diagnosis of GDM is a must to strengthen its diagnosis and protect both the mother and the baby from complications.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15597,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of diabetes & metabolism\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"1-4\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of diabetes & metabolism\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-6156.1000799\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of diabetes & metabolism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-6156.1000799","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

目的:比较世界卫生组织(WHO)、美国糖尿病协会(ADA)和国际糖尿病与妊娠研究组织协会(IADPSG)诊断菲律宾马尼拉地区妊娠期糖尿病的标准。材料和方法:我们采用回顾性队列研究设计,回顾了在马尼拉大都会选定的医院和独立实验室的919名孕妇的75克口服葡萄糖耐量试验结果。我们采用三个诊断GDM的标准,即WHO(空腹:7.0 mmol/L;2小时值:11.1 mmol/L), ADA(空腹:5.28 mmol/L;1小时:10 mmol/L;8.61 mmol/L)或IADPSG(空腹:5.11 mmol/L;1小时:10 mmol/L;2小时值:8.5 mmol/L),计算并比较其诊断敏感性、诊断特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)和阴性预测值(NPV)。结果:按照WHO标准,我们发现48例GDM患者;按照ADA标准,150人患有GDM;按照IADPSG标准,269名女性患有GDM。将IADPSG标准应用于人群将使GDM的发生率从5.22% (WHO)增加到16.32% (ADA),再增加到29.27%。鉴于患病率最高,我们采用IADPSG标准作为诊断敏感性、诊断特异性、NPV和PPV的计算标准。结果ADA标准对OGTT的诊断敏感性为55.97%,高于WHO标准(17.91%)。ADA标准的NPV为84.66%,高于WHO标准的74.74%。在诊断特异性方面,ADA和WHO标准的特异性均为100%。结论:采用IADPSG标准替代ADA和WHO标准,可显著提高GDM患病率,减少误诊病例。此外,标准化诊断标准将防止妊娠糖尿病引起的妊娠并发症。必须有一个单一的全球诊断GDM标准,以加强其诊断并保护母亲和婴儿免受并发症的侵害。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Screening and Diagnosis of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Using 75-g Oral Glucose Tolerance Test Following the WHO, ADA, and IADPSG Criteria
Aim: We aim to compare the World Health Organization (WHO), American Diabetes Association (ADA), and the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria to diagnose gestational diabetes mellitus in Metro Manila, Philippines.Materials and methods: We used a retrospective cohort study design and reviewed 75-g oral glucose tolerance test results of 919 pregnant women at selected hospital-based and free-standing laboratories in Metro Manila. We used three criteria for diagnosing GDM namely, WHO (fasting: 7.0 mmol/L; 2-hour value: 11.1 mmol/L), ADA (fasting: 5.28 mmol/L; 1-hour: 10 mmol/L; 8.61 mmol/L), or IADPSG (fasting: 5.11 mmol/L; 1 hour: 10 mmol/L; 2-hour value: 8.5 mmol/L) and computed and compared their diagnostic sensitivity, diagnostic specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV).Results: Following the WHO criteria, we found 48 GDM patients; using ADA criteria, 150 have GDM; and using IADPSG criteria, 269 women have GDM. Applying the IADPSG criteria to the population would increase the rate of GDM from 5.22% (WHO) to 16.32% (ADA) to 29.27%. Giving the highest prevalence rate, we used IADPSG criteria as the standard to compute for diagnostic sensitivity, diagnostic specificity, NPV and PPV. Results showed that the diagnostic sensitivity of OGTT using ADA criteria is 55.97%, which is higher than using the WHO criteria (17.91%). ADA criteria also has a higher NPV of 84.66% as compared with WHO criteria NPV of 74.74%. In terms of diagnostic specificity, both ADA and WHO criteria have 100% specificity.Conclusions: The use of IADPSG criteria instead of ADA and WHO criteria would result in a considerable increase in the prevalence rate of GDM, which would lessen cases of misdiagnosis. Further, standardizing the criteria for diagnosis will prevent pregnancy complications due to GDM. A single global criterion for the diagnosis of GDM is a must to strengthen its diagnosis and protect both the mother and the baby from complications.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信