MJA
MJA InSight
MJA Careers
For debate / Comment

Odds, risks and appropriate diagnosis of gestational diabetes: comment

Michael C d’Emden
Med J Aust 2015; 202 (6): 311-312.
doi:
10.5694/mja14.01751

In my opinion, McIntyre and colleagues have misunderstood the primary point I raised in my earlier article in the Journal.1 My concern was not the increased number of women diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), but the accuracy of the diagnostic thresholds.

Michael C d’Emden, MB BS, PhD, FRACP1,2
1 Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD.
2 University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD.
Article References: 
Reference Text: 
d'Emden MC. Reassessment of the new diagnostic thresholds for gestational diabetes mellitus: an opportunity for improvement. Med J Aust 2014; 201: 209-211.
Reference Order: 
1
PubMed ID: 
Reference Text: 
International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups Consensus Panel; Metzger BE, Gabbe SG, Persson B, et al. International association of diabetes and pregnancy study groups recommendations on the diagnosis and classification of hyperglycemia in pregnancy. Diabetes Care 2010; 33: 676-682.
Reference Order: 
2
PubMed ID: 
Reference Text: 
HAPO Study Cooperative Research Group; Metzger BE, Lowe LP, Dyer AR, et al. Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 1991-2002.
Reference Order: 
3
PubMed ID: 
Reference Text: 
Metzger BE, Dyer AR. Comment on d'Emden. Do the new threshold levels for the diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus correctly identify women at risk? Diabetes Care 2014; 37: e43-e44.
Reference Order: 
4
PubMed ID: 
Reference Text: 
D'Agostino Sr RB, Vasan RS, Pencina MJ, et al. General cardiovascular risk profile for use in primary care: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation 2008; 117: 743-753.
Reference Order: 
5
PubMed ID: 

The full contents of this page are only available to subscribers.