Premium
Gestational diabetes mellitus: Confusion among medical doctors caused by multiple international criteria
Author(s) -
Agarwal Mukesh M.,
Shah Syed M.,
Al Kaabi Juma,
Saquib Shabnam,
Othman Yusra
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.597
H-Index - 50
eISSN - 1447-0756
pISSN - 1341-8076
DOI - 10.1111/jog.12661
Subject(s) - medicine , gestational diabetes , pregnancy , specialty , diabetes mellitus , family medicine , obstetrics , diabetes in pregnancy , test (biology) , pediatrics , gestation , endocrinology , paleontology , genetics , biology
Aim The aim of this study was to appraise the current regional practices of screening, diagnosis and follow‐up of gestational diabetes mellitus ( GDM ) because the approach to GDM is frequently inconsistent. Material and Methods A 21‐item questionnaire was distributed to physicians taking care of pregnant women in seven hospitals in the U nited A rab E mirates and one hospital in O man. Besides assessing their attitudes towards testing for GDM , the questionnaire assessed familiarity with the H yperglycemia and P regnancy O utcome study and the I nternational A ssociation of D iabetes in P regnancy S tudy G roups GDM guidelines. Results One hundred and forty‐eight (93%) of the 159 questionnaires distributed to the medical doctors (106 [72%] obstetricians and 42 [28%] internists) were returned. For GDM screening, six hospitals used five different tests; two hospitals utilized one single test. For GDM diagnosis, six hospitals employed the 2‐h, 75‐g oral glucose tolerance test ( OGTT ) (four different criteria) while two hospitals used the 3‐h, 100‐g OGTT (single criteria). For post‐delivery follow‐up, the 2‐h, 75‐g OGTT and fasting plasma glucose were accepted by 103 (70%) and 38 (26%) of the 148 medical doctors, respectively. Ninety‐eight (69%) of 143 responding physicians were aware of the H yperglycemia and P regnancy O utcome study, while 85 (61%) of 140 responders were familiar with the guidelines of the I nternational A ssociation of D iabetes in P regnancy S tudy G roups; this knowledge was independent of specialty, seniority, academia, years in practice or country trained. Conclusions Although this study is parochial, its implications are global; that is, further education of caregivers would make the discordant approach to GDM (within and between hospitals) more harmonious and improve the obstetric care of pregnant women.