Scientific Evidence for Different Options for GDM Screening and Management: Controversies and Review of the Literature

Joint Authors

Berghella, Vincenzo
Caissutti, Claudia

Source

BioMed Research International

Issue

Vol. 2017, Issue 2017 (31 Dec. 2017), pp.1-12, 12 p.

Publisher

Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Publication Date

2017-04-10

Country of Publication

Egypt

No. of Pages

12

Main Subjects

Medicine

Abstract EN

Background.

Gestational diabetes (GDM) affects up to 7% of pregnant women and is associated with several maternal and perinatal morbidities.

International organizations suggest several different recommendations regarding how to screen and to manage GDM.

Objective.

We aimed to analyze the most important and employed guidelines about screening and management of GDM and we investigated existing related literature.

Results.

We found several different criteria for screening for GDM, for monitoring GDM, and for starting pharmacological therapy.

When using IADPSG criteria, GDM rate increased, perinatal outcomes improved, and screening became cost-effective.

Compared to no treatment, treatment of women meeting criteria for GDM by IADPSG criteria but not by other less strict criteria has limited evidence for an effect on adverse pregnancy outcomes.

American Psychological Association (APA)

Caissutti, Claudia& Berghella, Vincenzo. 2017. Scientific Evidence for Different Options for GDM Screening and Management: Controversies and Review of the Literature. BioMed Research International،Vol. 2017, no. 2017, pp.1-12.
https://search.emarefa.net/detail/BIM-1135099

Modern Language Association (MLA)

Caissutti, Claudia& Berghella, Vincenzo. Scientific Evidence for Different Options for GDM Screening and Management: Controversies and Review of the Literature. BioMed Research International No. 2017 (2017), pp.1-12.
https://search.emarefa.net/detail/BIM-1135099

American Medical Association (AMA)

Caissutti, Claudia& Berghella, Vincenzo. Scientific Evidence for Different Options for GDM Screening and Management: Controversies and Review of the Literature. BioMed Research International. 2017. Vol. 2017, no. 2017, pp.1-12.
https://search.emarefa.net/detail/BIM-1135099

Data Type

Journal Articles

Language

English

Notes

Includes bibliographical references

Record ID

BIM-1135099