Loading…

One step versus two step approach for gestational diabetes screening: systematic review and meta-analysis of the randomized trials

Introduction: To compare both the prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) as well as maternal and neonatal outcomes by either the one-step or the two-step approaches. Material and methods: Electronic databases were searched from their inception until June 2017. We included all randomized c...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine 2019-05, Vol.32 (9), p.1547-1555
Main Authors: Saccone, Gabriele, Caissutti, Claudia, Khalifeh, Adeeb, Meltzer, Sara, Scifres, Christina, Simhan, Hyagriv N., Kelekci, Sefa, Sevket, Osman, Berghella, Vincenzo
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c366t-f6bca70e825e21fe22dcd8ba14152a80062aad6e9f264b09ba5f2083456a63583
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c366t-f6bca70e825e21fe22dcd8ba14152a80062aad6e9f264b09ba5f2083456a63583
container_end_page 1555
container_issue 9
container_start_page 1547
container_title The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine
container_volume 32
creator Saccone, Gabriele
Caissutti, Claudia
Khalifeh, Adeeb
Meltzer, Sara
Scifres, Christina
Simhan, Hyagriv N.
Kelekci, Sefa
Sevket, Osman
Berghella, Vincenzo
description Introduction: To compare both the prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) as well as maternal and neonatal outcomes by either the one-step or the two-step approaches. Material and methods: Electronic databases were searched from their inception until June 2017. We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the one-step with the two-step approaches for the screening and diagnosis of GDM. The primary outcome was the incidence of GDM. Results: Three RCTs (n = 2333 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. 910 were randomized to the one step approach (75 g, 2 hrs), and 1423 to the two step approach. No significant difference in the incidence of GDM was found comparing the one step versus the two step approaches (8.4 versus 4.3%; relative risk (RR) 1.64, 95%CI 0.77-3.48). Women screened with the one step approach had a significantly lower risk of preterm birth (PTB) (3.7 versus 7.6%; RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.27-0.88), cesarean delivery (16.3 versus 22.0%; RR 0.74, 95%CI 0.56-0.99), macrosomia (2.9 versus 6.9%; RR 0.43, 95%CI 0.22-0.82), neonatal hypoglycemia (1.7 versus 4.5%; RR 0.38, 95%CI 0.16-0.90), and admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) (4.4 versus 9.0%; RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.29-0.84), compared to those randomized to screening with the two step approach. Conclusions: The one and the two step approaches were not associated with a significant difference in the incidence of GDM. However, the one step approach was associated with better maternal and perinatal outcomes.
doi_str_mv 10.1080/14767058.2017.1408068
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_infor</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1966997259</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1966997259</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c366t-f6bca70e825e21fe22dcd8ba14152a80062aad6e9f264b09ba5f2083456a63583</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1v3CAQhlHVqkmT_IRWHHvxFrDBdk6JovRDipRLe0ZjPCRUttkybFbbY355We0mx54GhudlNA9jH6VYSdGJL7JpTSt0t1JCtivZlJ7p3rDTfb9qet28PZ730An7QPRbCFU4_Z6dqF7qVtTilD3fL8gp45o_YaIN8byNhzus1ymCe-Q-Jv6AlCGHuMDExwADZiROLiEuYXm45LQrmbkQjid8CrjlsIx8xgwVlMyOAvHoeX5EnspLnMNfHHlOASY6Z-98KXhxrGfs19fbnzffq7v7bz9uru8qVxuTK28GB63ATmlU0qNSoxu7AWQjtYJOCKMARoO9V6YZRD-A9kp0daMNmFp39Rn7fPi37PVnUxaycyCH0wQLxg1Z2RvT963SfUH1AXUpEiX0dp3CDGlnpbB7_fZFv93rt0f9JffpOGIzzDi-pl58F-DqAISlaJ1hG9M02gy7KSZfzLhAtv7_jH-sDpbV</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1966997259</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>One step versus two step approach for gestational diabetes screening: systematic review and meta-analysis of the randomized trials</title><source>Taylor and Francis:Jisc Collections:Taylor and Francis Read and Publish Agreement 2024-2025:Medical Collection (Reading list)</source><creator>Saccone, Gabriele ; Caissutti, Claudia ; Khalifeh, Adeeb ; Meltzer, Sara ; Scifres, Christina ; Simhan, Hyagriv N. ; Kelekci, Sefa ; Sevket, Osman ; Berghella, Vincenzo</creator><creatorcontrib>Saccone, Gabriele ; Caissutti, Claudia ; Khalifeh, Adeeb ; Meltzer, Sara ; Scifres, Christina ; Simhan, Hyagriv N. ; Kelekci, Sefa ; Sevket, Osman ; Berghella, Vincenzo</creatorcontrib><description>Introduction: To compare both the prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) as well as maternal and neonatal outcomes by either the one-step or the two-step approaches. Material and methods: Electronic databases were searched from their inception until June 2017. We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the one-step with the two-step approaches for the screening and diagnosis of GDM. The primary outcome was the incidence of GDM. Results: Three RCTs (n = 2333 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. 910 were randomized to the one step approach (75 g, 2 hrs), and 1423 to the two step approach. No significant difference in the incidence of GDM was found comparing the one step versus the two step approaches (8.4 versus 4.3%; relative risk (RR) 1.64, 95%CI 0.77-3.48). Women screened with the one step approach had a significantly lower risk of preterm birth (PTB) (3.7 versus 7.6%; RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.27-0.88), cesarean delivery (16.3 versus 22.0%; RR 0.74, 95%CI 0.56-0.99), macrosomia (2.9 versus 6.9%; RR 0.43, 95%CI 0.22-0.82), neonatal hypoglycemia (1.7 versus 4.5%; RR 0.38, 95%CI 0.16-0.90), and admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) (4.4 versus 9.0%; RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.29-0.84), compared to those randomized to screening with the two step approach. Conclusions: The one and the two step approaches were not associated with a significant difference in the incidence of GDM. However, the one step approach was associated with better maternal and perinatal outcomes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1476-7058</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1476-4954</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2017.1408068</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29157030</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Taylor &amp; Francis</publisher><subject>Diabetes ; gestational diabetes mellitus ; insulin ; obesity</subject><ispartof>The journal of maternal-fetal &amp; neonatal medicine, 2019-05, Vol.32 (9), p.1547-1555</ispartof><rights>2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor &amp; Francis Group 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c366t-f6bca70e825e21fe22dcd8ba14152a80062aad6e9f264b09ba5f2083456a63583</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c366t-f6bca70e825e21fe22dcd8ba14152a80062aad6e9f264b09ba5f2083456a63583</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-0078-2113</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29157030$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Saccone, Gabriele</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Caissutti, Claudia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khalifeh, Adeeb</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meltzer, Sara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scifres, Christina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simhan, Hyagriv N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kelekci, Sefa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sevket, Osman</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berghella, Vincenzo</creatorcontrib><title>One step versus two step approach for gestational diabetes screening: systematic review and meta-analysis of the randomized trials</title><title>The journal of maternal-fetal &amp; neonatal medicine</title><addtitle>J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med</addtitle><description>Introduction: To compare both the prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) as well as maternal and neonatal outcomes by either the one-step or the two-step approaches. Material and methods: Electronic databases were searched from their inception until June 2017. We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the one-step with the two-step approaches for the screening and diagnosis of GDM. The primary outcome was the incidence of GDM. Results: Three RCTs (n = 2333 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. 910 were randomized to the one step approach (75 g, 2 hrs), and 1423 to the two step approach. No significant difference in the incidence of GDM was found comparing the one step versus the two step approaches (8.4 versus 4.3%; relative risk (RR) 1.64, 95%CI 0.77-3.48). Women screened with the one step approach had a significantly lower risk of preterm birth (PTB) (3.7 versus 7.6%; RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.27-0.88), cesarean delivery (16.3 versus 22.0%; RR 0.74, 95%CI 0.56-0.99), macrosomia (2.9 versus 6.9%; RR 0.43, 95%CI 0.22-0.82), neonatal hypoglycemia (1.7 versus 4.5%; RR 0.38, 95%CI 0.16-0.90), and admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) (4.4 versus 9.0%; RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.29-0.84), compared to those randomized to screening with the two step approach. Conclusions: The one and the two step approaches were not associated with a significant difference in the incidence of GDM. However, the one step approach was associated with better maternal and perinatal outcomes.</description><subject>Diabetes</subject><subject>gestational diabetes mellitus</subject><subject>insulin</subject><subject>obesity</subject><issn>1476-7058</issn><issn>1476-4954</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kE1v3CAQhlHVqkmT_IRWHHvxFrDBdk6JovRDipRLe0ZjPCRUttkybFbbY355We0mx54GhudlNA9jH6VYSdGJL7JpTSt0t1JCtivZlJ7p3rDTfb9qet28PZ730An7QPRbCFU4_Z6dqF7qVtTilD3fL8gp45o_YaIN8byNhzus1ymCe-Q-Jv6AlCGHuMDExwADZiROLiEuYXm45LQrmbkQjid8CrjlsIx8xgwVlMyOAvHoeX5EnspLnMNfHHlOASY6Z-98KXhxrGfs19fbnzffq7v7bz9uru8qVxuTK28GB63ATmlU0qNSoxu7AWQjtYJOCKMARoO9V6YZRD-A9kp0daMNmFp39Rn7fPi37PVnUxaycyCH0wQLxg1Z2RvT963SfUH1AXUpEiX0dp3CDGlnpbB7_fZFv93rt0f9JffpOGIzzDi-pl58F-DqAISlaJ1hG9M02gy7KSZfzLhAtv7_jH-sDpbV</recordid><startdate>20190503</startdate><enddate>20190503</enddate><creator>Saccone, Gabriele</creator><creator>Caissutti, Claudia</creator><creator>Khalifeh, Adeeb</creator><creator>Meltzer, Sara</creator><creator>Scifres, Christina</creator><creator>Simhan, Hyagriv N.</creator><creator>Kelekci, Sefa</creator><creator>Sevket, Osman</creator><creator>Berghella, Vincenzo</creator><general>Taylor &amp; Francis</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0078-2113</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20190503</creationdate><title>One step versus two step approach for gestational diabetes screening: systematic review and meta-analysis of the randomized trials</title><author>Saccone, Gabriele ; Caissutti, Claudia ; Khalifeh, Adeeb ; Meltzer, Sara ; Scifres, Christina ; Simhan, Hyagriv N. ; Kelekci, Sefa ; Sevket, Osman ; Berghella, Vincenzo</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c366t-f6bca70e825e21fe22dcd8ba14152a80062aad6e9f264b09ba5f2083456a63583</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Diabetes</topic><topic>gestational diabetes mellitus</topic><topic>insulin</topic><topic>obesity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Saccone, Gabriele</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Caissutti, Claudia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khalifeh, Adeeb</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meltzer, Sara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scifres, Christina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simhan, Hyagriv N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kelekci, Sefa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sevket, Osman</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berghella, Vincenzo</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The journal of maternal-fetal &amp; neonatal medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Saccone, Gabriele</au><au>Caissutti, Claudia</au><au>Khalifeh, Adeeb</au><au>Meltzer, Sara</au><au>Scifres, Christina</au><au>Simhan, Hyagriv N.</au><au>Kelekci, Sefa</au><au>Sevket, Osman</au><au>Berghella, Vincenzo</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>One step versus two step approach for gestational diabetes screening: systematic review and meta-analysis of the randomized trials</atitle><jtitle>The journal of maternal-fetal &amp; neonatal medicine</jtitle><addtitle>J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med</addtitle><date>2019-05-03</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>1547</spage><epage>1555</epage><pages>1547-1555</pages><issn>1476-7058</issn><eissn>1476-4954</eissn><abstract>Introduction: To compare both the prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) as well as maternal and neonatal outcomes by either the one-step or the two-step approaches. Material and methods: Electronic databases were searched from their inception until June 2017. We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the one-step with the two-step approaches for the screening and diagnosis of GDM. The primary outcome was the incidence of GDM. Results: Three RCTs (n = 2333 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. 910 were randomized to the one step approach (75 g, 2 hrs), and 1423 to the two step approach. No significant difference in the incidence of GDM was found comparing the one step versus the two step approaches (8.4 versus 4.3%; relative risk (RR) 1.64, 95%CI 0.77-3.48). Women screened with the one step approach had a significantly lower risk of preterm birth (PTB) (3.7 versus 7.6%; RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.27-0.88), cesarean delivery (16.3 versus 22.0%; RR 0.74, 95%CI 0.56-0.99), macrosomia (2.9 versus 6.9%; RR 0.43, 95%CI 0.22-0.82), neonatal hypoglycemia (1.7 versus 4.5%; RR 0.38, 95%CI 0.16-0.90), and admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) (4.4 versus 9.0%; RR 0.49, 95%CI 0.29-0.84), compared to those randomized to screening with the two step approach. Conclusions: The one and the two step approaches were not associated with a significant difference in the incidence of GDM. However, the one step approach was associated with better maternal and perinatal outcomes.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Taylor &amp; Francis</pub><pmid>29157030</pmid><doi>10.1080/14767058.2017.1408068</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0078-2113</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1476-7058
ispartof The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine, 2019-05, Vol.32 (9), p.1547-1555
issn 1476-7058
1476-4954
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1966997259
source Taylor and Francis:Jisc Collections:Taylor and Francis Read and Publish Agreement 2024-2025:Medical Collection (Reading list)
subjects Diabetes
gestational diabetes mellitus
insulin
obesity
title One step versus two step approach for gestational diabetes screening: systematic review and meta-analysis of the randomized trials
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T02%3A54%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_infor&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=One%20step%20versus%20two%20step%20approach%20for%20gestational%20diabetes%20screening:%20systematic%20review%20and%20meta-analysis%20of%20the%20randomized%20trials&rft.jtitle=The%20journal%20of%20maternal-fetal%20&%20neonatal%20medicine&rft.au=Saccone,%20Gabriele&rft.date=2019-05-03&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1547&rft.epage=1555&rft.pages=1547-1555&rft.issn=1476-7058&rft.eissn=1476-4954&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/14767058.2017.1408068&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_infor%3E1966997259%3C/proquest_infor%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c366t-f6bca70e825e21fe22dcd8ba14152a80062aad6e9f264b09ba5f2083456a63583%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1966997259&rft_id=info:pmid/29157030&rfr_iscdi=true