World Health Organization Versus Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group India Approaches in the Screening of Gestational Diabetes Among Pregnant Women With Risk Factors: A Study Among Rural Population of Telangana, South India
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) represents a pathological condition wherein pregnant women (PW) suffer from glycemic dysregulation, which predisposes them to an increased risk of developing complications related to pregnancy and childbirth. The most commonly used guidelines to screen for GDM include those provided by the World Health Organization (WHO), the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Canadian Diabetes Association, and the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group. The Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group India (DIPSI) guidelines are national-level recommendations to screen for GDM in India. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of DIPSI criteria versus the WHO guidelines in screening for GDM among the rural population of Telangana, South India Methods A total of 300 PW aged 19-35 years with a gestational age of 24-28 weeks attending the antenatal clinic attached to Mahavir Institute of Medical Sciences (MIMS), Vikarabad, Telangana, India were included in the study. The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of MIMS, and informed consent was obtained from all the participants. Of the 300 subjects included, 75 PW were categorized as at-risk for GDM based on risk factors and were included for further analysis. The data relating to body mass index (BMI), oral glucose tolerance test, and the diagnosis of GDM based on DIPSI and the WHO criteria were collected. Results Out of the 75 PW included in the study, an overall GDM prevalence of 32% was noted among which 20 (26.7%) were diagnosed using the WHO criteria, 12 (16%) by DIPSI criteria, and the remaining 73.3% were non-GDM women. The mean gestational age and BMI among non-GDM and GDM patients were 24.74±4.15 weeks, 22.24±3.60 kg/m2, and 25.70±4.40, 24.48±3.37 kg/m2 (p<0.01), respectively. The activities of glucose at the second hour after a GTT among non-GDM and GDM cases were 113.70±20.4 mg/dL and 128.04±18.6 mg/dL (p=0.004), respectively. Conclusion DIPSI criteria could identify fewer numbers of GDM women as compared to the WHO criteria. Although the DIPSI criteria are convenient and prescribe less number of interventions, they could possibly miss many cases of GDM. Moreover, PW who remain undiagnosed could, in the future, be at risk of developing diabetes. Based on the study results and because risks should outweigh the benefits, we propose that DIPSI cannot be implemented as a single criterion to screen for GDM among PW in Indian settings.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».