Comparison of the effectiveness of screening methods for the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus in pregnant women: A cross-sectional study.

Objective: The methods and criteria used for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) screening in pregnant women are updated by the relevant organisations in certain periods. We aimed to compare the efficiency of GDM screening tests in pregnant women and to investigate the reasons of different prevalence values reported in the literature.

Materials And Methods: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, a total of 2406 pregnant women who were admitted to the obstetric outpatient clinic for screening GDM, were included. All pregnant women were randomly screened between 24 and 28 gestational weeks, using one-step (75 gr glucose loading) or two-step (50 gr and 100 gr glucose loading) methods. The demographic, clinical and biochemical parameters of the study population were analysed.

Results: In our study, 680 pregnant women were screened by one-step method and 1726 by two-step method. The average age of the one-step and two-step groups was 28.3 ± 5.7 and 28.1 ± 5.1, respectively, and no statistically significant difference was found between the ages of the two groups (P = .647). Other baseline characteristics, including maternal age, maternal weight, height, body mass index, gestational week, multiparity, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, pulse, fasting plasma glucose were not significantly different between the two groups (P > .05, for all). The prevalence of GDM was significantly higher in the one-step group than that in the two-step group: 158/680 (23.2%) versus 143/1683 (8.5%), respectively. A statistically significant difference was found between the prevalence of the two groups (P < .001).

Conclusion: The reason for the different prevalence values obtained in GDM screening studies may be because of the preferred method. Considering the advantages and disadvantages of both methods, studies are needed in which international organisations will revise their diagnostic criteria. We think it would be more appropriate to use the two-step screening method until international professional organisations develop a new methodology and new cut-off values.