Choose your font:
 Arimo
 Merriweather
 Mukta Malar
 Open Sans Condensed
 Rokkitt
 Source Sans Pro
 Login


 English 
 Français 
 Português 

[Valid RSS] RSS
bar

Database - Alliance francophone pour l'accouchement respecté (AFAR)

Description of this bibliographical database (AFAR website)
YouTube channel (tutorial)

https://afar.info/id=635

Created on : 13 Apr 2004
Modified on : 02 Dec 2007

 Modify this record
Do not follow this link unless you know an editor’s password!


Share: Facebook logo   Tweeter logo   Hard

Bibliographical entry (without author) :

Gestational diabetes: implications of variation in post-partum follow-up criteria. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 2004;113(2):149-153.

Author(s) :

Agarwal MM, Punnose J, Dhatt GS.

Year of publication :

2004

URL(s) :

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T69…

Résumé (français)  :

Abstract (English)  :

OBJECTIVE: To compare the recommendations of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) with the World Health Organization (WHO) for evaluating women with gestational diabetes (GDM) after delivery.
STUDY DESIGN: During a 5-year period, 549 patients underwent the 2 h, 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), 4–8 weeks after delivery. They were classified by the criteria of WHO (1985), the ADA [1997, fasting glucose (FPG)] and the revised WHO (1999).
RESULTS: The prevalence of diabetes by WHO-1985 and ADA-1997 were similar (8.2% versus 6.6%) but estimates of impaired glucose homeostasis varied widely (15.5% impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) versus 9.3% impaired fasting glucose, respectively). 118 (21.5%) women and 83 (15.1%) women showed a classification discrepancy between ADA-1997 with the WHO-1985 and -1999, respectively. The receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve area of the FPG was 0.94 for DM by the OGTT (WHO-1985 criteria) but only 0.59 for IGT by the 2 h post-glucose. CONCLUSIONS: The various guidelines for GDM follow-up after delivery, often based on expert opinion, produce similar estimates for diabetes prevalence but widely discordant results for glucose intolerance. Until more uniform evidence-based criteria become available, the various strategies for GDM follow-up will continue to cause confusion in clinical practice.

Sumário (português)  :

Comments :

Argument (français) :

Argument (English):

Argumento (português):

Keywords :

➡ evidence-based medicine/midwifery ; screening ; gestational diabetes

Author of this record :

Cécile Loup — 13 Apr 2004

Discussion (display only in English)
 
➡ Only identified users



 I have read the guidelines of discussions and I accept all terms (read guidelines)

barre

New expert query --- New simple query

Creating new record --- Importing records

User management --- Dump database --- Contact

bar

This database is managed by Alliance francophone pour l'accouchement respecté (AFAR, https://afar.info)
affiliated with Collectif interassociatif autour de la naissance (CIANE, http://ciane.net).
It is fed by the voluntary contributions of persons interested in the sharing of scientific data.
If you agree with this project, you can support us in several ways:
(1) contributing to this database if you have a minimum training in documentation
(2) or financially supporting AFAR (see below)
(3) or joining the AFAR (or another society affiliated with CIANE).
Sign in or create an account to follow changes or become an editor.
Contact afar.association(arobase)gmail.com for more information.

Valid CSS! Valid HTML!
Donating to AFAR (click “Faire un don”) will help us to maintain and develop sites and public
databases towards the support of parents and caregivers’ informed decisions with respect to childbirth