Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Screening for gestational diabetes: variation in guidelines.

N Vogel1, B Burnand, Y Vial

  • 1Institut universitaire de médecine sociale et préventive, Lausanne, Switzerland.

European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology
|May 19, 2000
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Level of readiness of chronic pain patients to practise active self-care.

European journal of pain (London, England)·2018
Same author

Selection bias in ecological studies.

Public health·2017
Same author

Seasonality of sodium and potassium consumption in Switzerland. Data from three cross-sectional, population-based studies.

Nutrition, metabolism, and cardiovascular diseases : NMCD·2017
Same author

Archives of gynecology and obstetrics·2016
Same author

Planning and reporting of quality-of-life outcomes in cancer trials.

Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology·2015
Same author

Capturing diagnosis-timing in ICD-coded hospital data: recommendations from the WHO ICD-11 topic advisory group on quality and safety.

International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care·2015
Same journal

Perinatal insights into human T-lymphotropic virus 1 in western French Guiana: Unmasking a silent disease.

European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology·2026
Same journal

Sentinel lymph node biopsy in atypical endometrial hyperplasia: impact on staging and adjuvant treatment.

European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology·2026
Same journal

Selective intraoperative multi-vessel embolization for placenta accreta spectrum: a doubly robust propensity-weighted analysis of a histologically confirmed cohort.

European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology·2026
Same journal

Retraction notice to "Amino acid chelated iron versus an iron salt in the treatment of iron deficiency anemia with pregnancy: A randomized controlled study" [Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 210 (2017) 242-246].

European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology·2026
Same journal

Fertility and pregnancy knowledge and expectations among women with a history of metabolic bariatric surgery.

European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology·2026
Same journal

A prospective non-randomized controlled study of a flexible panoramic electronic hysteroscope in outpatient hysteroscopic diagnosis and treatment.

European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology·2026
See all related articles

Published guidelines for gestational diabetes screening vary significantly, impacting patient care. Current recommendations lack strong evidence, highlighting a need for improved guideline development based on robust data for better maternal and infant health outcomes.

Area of Science:

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology
  • Clinical Guidelines
  • Public Health

Background:

  • Screening for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a critical component of prenatal care.
  • Existing guidelines for GDM screening show considerable heterogeneity.
  • The optimal approach to GDM screening remains a subject of debate.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To systematically compare and analyze published guidelines for gestational diabetes screening.
  • To evaluate the quality and consistency of current GDM screening recommendations.
  • To assess the potential impact of guideline variations on clinical practice.

Main Methods:

  • A systematic literature search was conducted to identify relevant GDM screening guidelines.
  • Comparative analysis of identified guidelines, including screening strategies, timing, and diagnostic thresholds.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Appraisal of guideline quality using a standardized assessment tool.
  • Simulation analysis to estimate variations in patient screening based on different guidelines.

    • Main Results:

    • Ten guidelines were analyzed, proposing universal screening (5), selective screening (3), or screening based on clinical indication (2).
    • Significant variations were found in testing schedules and blood glucose thresholds across guidelines.
    • The overall quality of the analyzed guidelines was low, with an average score of 22% (range 8-51%).
    • These inconsistencies could lead to substantial differences in the number of pregnant individuals screened for GDM.

    Conclusions:

    • Observed variations in GDM screening guidelines are likely to result in significant practice variations.
    • The lack of definitive evidence supporting the benefits versus harms of universal or selective GDM screening contributes to guideline discrepancies.
    • There is a critical need for more evidence-based, systematic, and explicit methodologies in developing clinical practice guidelines for GDM screening.