Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 14, 2025

A High-Throughput Multiplexed Screening for Type 1 Diabetes, Celiac Diseases, and COVID-19
Published on: July 5, 2022
A Pragmatic, Randomized Clinical Trial of Gestational Diabetes Screening
Teresa A Hillier1, Kathryn L Pedula1, Keith K Ogasawara1
1From the Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest (T.A.H., K.L.P., K.K.V., J.V.M.), and the Division of Perinatology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwest Permanente, Kaiser Permanente (S.L.L.), Portland, Oregon; and the Center for Integrated Health Care Research (T.A.H., C.E.S.O.) and the Division of Perinatology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (K.K.O.), Hawaii Permanente Medical Group (K.L.P., K.K.O.), Kaiser Permanente Hawaii, Honolulu.
Insights
The one-step screening for gestational diabetes resulted in more diagnoses but did not increase maternal or perinatal complications compared to the two-step approach. This suggests both screening methods are viable for managing gestational diabetes mellitus.
Area of Science:
- Obstetrics and Gynecology
- Endocrinology
- Clinical Trial Research
Background:
- Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is prevalent and linked to adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes.
- Universal screening for GDM is recommended, but a consensus on the optimal screening method is lacking.
- Two primary screening approaches exist: one-step and two-step methods.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the effectiveness and outcomes of one-step versus two-step screening for gestational diabetes.
- To evaluate the impact of each screening approach on maternal and perinatal complications.
Main Methods:
- A pragmatic, randomized trial involving 23,792 pregnant women across two health systems.
- Comparison of a one-step screening (75-g oral glucose tolerance test) with a two-step screening (50-g glucose challenge test followed by 100-g oral glucose tolerance test if positive).
- Primary outcomes included GDM diagnosis, large-for-gestational-age infants, perinatal composite outcomes, gestational hypertension/preeclampsia, and cesarean section rates.
Main Results:
- Gestational diabetes was diagnosed in 16.5% of women in the one-step group versus 8.5% in the two-step group (RR, 1.94).
- No significant differences were observed between the groups for large-for-gestational-age infants (RR, 0.95), perinatal composite outcomes (RR, 1.04), gestational hypertension/preeclampsia (RR, 1.00), or primary cesarean section (RR, 0.98).
- Results remained consistent after accounting for differential adherence to screening protocols.
Conclusions:
- The one-step screening approach led to a higher diagnosis rate of gestational diabetes compared to the two-step approach.
- Despite increased GDM diagnoses, the one-step method did not result in significantly higher risks of adverse maternal or perinatal outcomes.
- Both screening strategies appear to be effective in managing GDM without compromising maternal and infant safety.
Background:
Gestational diabetes mellitus is common and is associated with an increased risk of adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. Although experts recommend universal screening for gestational diabetes, consensus is lacking about which of two recommended screening approaches should be used.
Methods:
We performed a pragmatic, randomized trial comparing one-step screening (i.e., a glucose-tolerance test in which the blood glucose level was obtained after the oral administration of a 75-g glucose load in the fasting state) with two-step screening (a glucose challenge test in which the blood glucose level was obtained after the oral administration of a 50-g glucose load in the nonfasting state, followed, if positive, by an oral glucose-tolerance test with a 100-g glucose load in the fasting state) in all pregnant women who received care in two health systems. Guidelines for the treatment of gestational diabetes were consistent with the two screening approaches. The primary outcomes were a diagnosis of gestational diabetes, large-for-gestational-age infants, a perinatal composite outcome (stillbirth, neonatal death, shoulder dystocia, bone fracture, or any arm or hand nerve palsy related to birth injury), gestational hypertension or preeclampsia, and primary cesarean section.
Results:
A total of 23,792 women underwent randomization; women with more than one pregnancy during the trial could have been assigned to more than one type of screening. A total of 66% of the women in the one-step group and 92% of those in the two-step group adhered to the assigned screening. Gestational diabetes was diagnosed in 16.5% of the women assigned to the one-step approach and in 8.5% of those assigned to the two-step approach (unadjusted relative risk, 1.94; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 1.79 to 2.11). In intention-to-treat analyses, the respective incidences of the other primary outcomes were as follows: large-for-gestational-age infants, 8.9% and 9.2% (relative risk, 0.95; 97.5% CI, 0.87 to 1.05); perinatal composite outcome, 3.1% and 3.0% (relative risk, 1.04; 97.5% CI, 0.88 to 1.23); gestational hypertension or preeclampsia, 13.6% and 13.5% (relative risk, 1.00; 97.5% CI, 0.93 to 1.08); and primary cesarean section, 24.0% and 24.6% (relative risk, 0.98; 97.5% CI, 0.93 to 1.02). The results were materially unchanged in intention-to-treat analyses with inverse probability weighting to account for differential adherence to the screening approaches.
Conclusions:
Despite more diagnoses of gestational diabetes with the one-step approach than with the two-step approach, there were no significant between-group differences in the risks of the primary outcomes relating to perinatal and maternal complications. (Funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; ScreenR2GDM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02266758.).
Related Concept Videos
Diabetes Mellitus: Type 2 and Gestational
Pathophysiology of Diabetes
Type 1 diabetes is characterized by autoimmune-mediated destruction of pancreatic β cells, with environmental factors potentially triggering this process in genetically susceptible individuals. Despite many not having a family history, certain genes increase susceptibility,...
Diabetes: Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Complications
Oral Hypoglycemic Agents: Glinides

