根据DIPSI指南筛查妊娠糖尿病

Aditi Phulpagar, P. Deshmukh, Anurag Gunderia
{"title":"根据DIPSI指南筛查妊娠糖尿病","authors":"Aditi Phulpagar, P. Deshmukh, Anurag Gunderia","doi":"10.7439/IJBR.V9I3.4724","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim and Objectives: The present study was undertaken to find out the role and effectiveness of DIPSI guidelines as a replacement for other more time consuming and cost effective methods for detecting gestational diabetes mellitus ( GDM) in the Indian population and to compare outcome between GDM and non GDM population. Methods: A total of 345 women were selected of low risk category between the gestational ages of 24 to 28 weeks and were subjected to screening for gestational diabetes by DIPSI guidelines. A 75mg oral glucose load was given irrespective of their last Meal timing followed by blood glucose estimation by glucose oxidase – peroxidase method. A report of ≥140mg/dl were labeled as GDM as per DIPSI guidelines. Results: Out of 345 subjects screened, 30 (8.7%) were positive for GDM. The false positives encountered with DIPSI were 0.57% (2/345) and another 2 cases (0.57%) were false negative by DIPSI criteria. The rate of LSCS and rate of macrosomia was significantly higher in GDM population (30% and 33.33% respectively) as   compared to general population (4.4% and 2.5% respectively). In GDM group 23.3% (7) had Shoulder Dystocia compared with 0.6% (2) in the normal population. 10% were breech compared with only 0.2% in the general population with 1 IUFD requiring hysterotomy. The rates of CPD were also higher (3.3%) than the general population (1.5%). A total of 19 neonates required NICU admission of which 11 were IDM. 36.66% of IDM required NICU admission as compared to only 2.5% of the non diabetic population. Conclusions: DIPSI guidelines can use as a replacement for other more resource and time consuming and costly methods like ADA criteria for the detection of GDM in the low resource settings in developing countries.","PeriodicalId":13909,"journal":{"name":"International journal of biomedical research","volume":"31 1","pages":"121-125"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Screening for Gestational Diabetes by DIPSI Guidelines\",\"authors\":\"Aditi Phulpagar, P. Deshmukh, Anurag Gunderia\",\"doi\":\"10.7439/IJBR.V9I3.4724\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aim and Objectives: The present study was undertaken to find out the role and effectiveness of DIPSI guidelines as a replacement for other more time consuming and cost effective methods for detecting gestational diabetes mellitus ( GDM) in the Indian population and to compare outcome between GDM and non GDM population. Methods: A total of 345 women were selected of low risk category between the gestational ages of 24 to 28 weeks and were subjected to screening for gestational diabetes by DIPSI guidelines. A 75mg oral glucose load was given irrespective of their last Meal timing followed by blood glucose estimation by glucose oxidase – peroxidase method. A report of ≥140mg/dl were labeled as GDM as per DIPSI guidelines. Results: Out of 345 subjects screened, 30 (8.7%) were positive for GDM. The false positives encountered with DIPSI were 0.57% (2/345) and another 2 cases (0.57%) were false negative by DIPSI criteria. The rate of LSCS and rate of macrosomia was significantly higher in GDM population (30% and 33.33% respectively) as   compared to general population (4.4% and 2.5% respectively). In GDM group 23.3% (7) had Shoulder Dystocia compared with 0.6% (2) in the normal population. 10% were breech compared with only 0.2% in the general population with 1 IUFD requiring hysterotomy. The rates of CPD were also higher (3.3%) than the general population (1.5%). A total of 19 neonates required NICU admission of which 11 were IDM. 36.66% of IDM required NICU admission as compared to only 2.5% of the non diabetic population. Conclusions: DIPSI guidelines can use as a replacement for other more resource and time consuming and costly methods like ADA criteria for the detection of GDM in the low resource settings in developing countries.\",\"PeriodicalId\":13909,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of biomedical research\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"121-125\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of biomedical research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7439/IJBR.V9I3.4724\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of biomedical research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7439/IJBR.V9I3.4724","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

目的和目的:本研究旨在发现DIPSI指南在印度人群中作为其他耗时且成本有效的方法检测妊娠糖尿病(GDM)的替代作用和有效性,并比较GDM和非GDM人群的结果。方法:选取孕周24 ~ 28周的低危女性345例,按照DIPSI指南进行妊娠期糖尿病筛查。不论最后一餐时间,均给予75mg口服葡萄糖负荷,然后用葡萄糖氧化酶-过氧化物酶法测定血糖。根据DIPSI指南,≥140mg/dl的报告被标记为GDM。结果:在筛选的345名受试者中,30名(8.7%)为GDM阳性。DIPSI假阳性为0.57% (2/345),DIPSI标准假阴性2例(0.57%)。GDM人群LSCS发生率和巨大儿发生率(分别为30%和33.33%)明显高于普通人群(分别为4.4%和2.5%)。GDM组23.3%(7)发生肩难产,而正常人群为0.6%(2)。10%为臀位,相比之下,1个IUFD需要剖宫产的普通人群中只有0.2%。慢性阻塞性肺病的发生率(3.3%)也高于普通人群(1.5%)。共有19例新生儿需要入住NICU,其中11例为IDM。36.66%的IDM患者需要入住NICU,而非糖尿病患者的这一比例仅为2.5%。结论:在发展中国家资源匮乏的环境中,DIPSI指南可以替代其他更多资源、耗时和昂贵的方法,如ADA标准,用于检测GDM。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Screening for Gestational Diabetes by DIPSI Guidelines
Aim and Objectives: The present study was undertaken to find out the role and effectiveness of DIPSI guidelines as a replacement for other more time consuming and cost effective methods for detecting gestational diabetes mellitus ( GDM) in the Indian population and to compare outcome between GDM and non GDM population. Methods: A total of 345 women were selected of low risk category between the gestational ages of 24 to 28 weeks and were subjected to screening for gestational diabetes by DIPSI guidelines. A 75mg oral glucose load was given irrespective of their last Meal timing followed by blood glucose estimation by glucose oxidase – peroxidase method. A report of ≥140mg/dl were labeled as GDM as per DIPSI guidelines. Results: Out of 345 subjects screened, 30 (8.7%) were positive for GDM. The false positives encountered with DIPSI were 0.57% (2/345) and another 2 cases (0.57%) were false negative by DIPSI criteria. The rate of LSCS and rate of macrosomia was significantly higher in GDM population (30% and 33.33% respectively) as   compared to general population (4.4% and 2.5% respectively). In GDM group 23.3% (7) had Shoulder Dystocia compared with 0.6% (2) in the normal population. 10% were breech compared with only 0.2% in the general population with 1 IUFD requiring hysterotomy. The rates of CPD were also higher (3.3%) than the general population (1.5%). A total of 19 neonates required NICU admission of which 11 were IDM. 36.66% of IDM required NICU admission as compared to only 2.5% of the non diabetic population. Conclusions: DIPSI guidelines can use as a replacement for other more resource and time consuming and costly methods like ADA criteria for the detection of GDM in the low resource settings in developing countries.
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