Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Prevalence estimates of gestational diabetes mellitus in the United States, Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS), 2007-2010.
DeSisto, Carla L; Kim, Shin Y; Sharma, Andrea J.
Afiliação
  • DeSisto CL; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 601 Sunland Park Dr, Suite 200, El Paso, TX 79912. E-mail: cdesisto@cdc.gov.
  • Kim SY; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
  • Sharma AJ; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Prev Chronic Dis ; 11: E104, 2014 Jun 19.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24945238
ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:

The true prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is unknown. The objective of this study was 1) to provide the most current GDM prevalence reported on the birth certificate and the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) questionnaire and 2) to compare GDM prevalence from PRAMS across 2007-2008 and 2009-2010.

METHODS:

We examined 2010 GDM prevalence reported on birth certificate or PRAMS questionnaire and concordance between the sources. We included 16 states that adopted the 2003 revised birth certificate. We also examined trends from 2007 through 2010 and included 21 states that participated in PRAMS for all 4 years. We combined GDM prevalence across 2-year intervals and conducted t tests to examine differences. Data were weighted to represent all women delivering live births in each state.

RESULTS:

GDM prevalence in 2010 was 4.6% as reported on the birth certificate, 8.7% as reported on the PRAMS questionnaire, and 9.2% as reported on either the birth certificate or questionnaire. The agreement between sources was 94.1% (percent positive agreement = 3.7%, percent negative agreement = 90.4%). There was no significant difference in GDM prevalence between 2007-2008 (8.1%) and 2009-2010 (8.5%, P = .15).

CONCLUSION:

Our results indicate that GDM prevalence is as high as 9.2% and is more likely to be reported on the PRAMS questionnaire than the birth certificate. We found no statistical difference in GDM prevalence between the 2 phases. Further studies are needed to understand discrepancies in reporting GDM by data source.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Diabetes Gestacional / Medição de Risco Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Etiology_studies / Observational_studies / Prevalence_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Adult / Female / Humans / Pregnancy País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: Prev Chronic Dis Assunto da revista: SAUDE PUBLICA Ano de publicação: 2014 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Diabetes Gestacional / Medição de Risco Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Etiology_studies / Observational_studies / Prevalence_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Adult / Female / Humans / Pregnancy País/Região como assunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: Prev Chronic Dis Assunto da revista: SAUDE PUBLICA Ano de publicação: 2014 Tipo de documento: Article