A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparison of universal screening for gestational diabetes mellitus between one-step and two-step method among Thai pregnant women: A randomized control trial. | LitMetric

Aims: To compare the prevalence of GDM and pregnancy outcomes between the one-step and two-step methods of universal screening among Thai pregnant women.

Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted on singleton Thai pregnant women at a gestational age of 24-28 weeks. They were randomly assigned to either the one-step method group (a universal 75-gm 2-h oral glucose tolerance test: OGTT) or the two-step method group (a universal 50-gm oral glucose challenge test followed by a 100-gm 3-h OGTT). The women received standard antenatal care. The prevalence of GDM and obstetric outcomes were compared.

Results: A total of 143 women meeting the inclusion criteria were randomly allocated into the one-step group (72 cases) and the two-step group (71 cases). The prevalence of GDM was significantly higher in the one-step group than in the two-step group, with rates of 24/73 (33.3%) vs 8/70 (11.3%); P value 0.002; relative risk of 2.96, 95% CI: 1.43-6.14, respectively. Demographic data and maternal and neonatal outcomes were comparable between the two groups.

Conclusions: The one-step method can markedly increase the prevalence of GDM to nearly three times that of the two-step method, leading to a substantial increase in care costs and burdens without clear benefits. Convincingly, the one-step method as a new approach may not be suitable for universal screening in a busy antenatal care setting, especially in low-resource health centers in developing countries or among populations with a high prevalence of GDM.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jdi.14370DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

prevalence gdm
20
universal screening
12
two-step method
12
thai pregnant
12
one-step method
12
one-step two-step
8
pregnant women
8
method group
8
group universal
8
oral glucose
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!