Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Europe: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prevalence Studies

Abstract

Background

Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) is defined as the type of hyperglycemia diagnosed for the first-time during pregnancy, presenting with intermediate glucose levels between normal levels for pregnancy and glucose levels diagnostic of diabetes in the non-pregnant state. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze studies of prevalence of GDM in European countries at regional and sub-regional levels, according to age, trimester, body weight, and GDM diagnostic criteria.

Methods

Systematic search was conducted in five databases to retrieve studies from 2014 to 2019 reporting the prevalence of GDM in Europe. Two authors have independently screened titles and abstracts and full text according to eligibility using Covidence software. A random-effects model was used to quantify weighted GDM prevalence estimates. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute criteria was used to assess the risk of bias.

Results

From the searched databases, 133 research reports were deemed eligible and included in the meta-analysis. The research reports yielded 254 GDM-prevalence studies that tested 15,572,847 pregnant women between 2014 and 2019. The 133 research reports were from 24 countries in Northern Europe (44.4%), Southern Europe (27.1%), Western Europe (24.1%), and Eastern Europe (4.5%). The overall weighted GDM prevalence in the 24 European countries was estimated at 10.9% (95% CI: 10.0–11.8, I2 : 100%). The weighted GDM prevalence was highest in the Eastern Europe (31.5%, 95% CI: 19.8–44.6, I2 : 98.9%), followed by in Southern Europe (12.3%, 95% CI: 10.9–13.9, I2 : 99.6%), Western Europe (10.7%, 95% CI: 9.5–12.0, I2 : 99.9%), and Northern Europe (8.9%, 95% CI: 7.9–10.0, I2 : 100). GDM prevalence was 2.14-fold increased in pregnant women with maternal age ≥30 years (versus 15-29 years old), 1.47-fold if the diagnosis was made in the third trimester (versus second trimester), and 6.79- fold in obese and 2.29-fold in overweight women (versus normal weight).

Conclusions

In Europe, GDM is significant in pregnant women, around 11%, with the highest prevalence in pregnant women of Eastern European countries (31.5%). Findings have implications to guide vigilant public health awareness campaigns about the risk factors associated with developing GDM.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/], identifier CRD42020161857.

Introduction

Hyperglycemia in pregnancy affects about one in every six pregnancies worldwide (1). Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) is defined as the type of hyperglycemia diagnosed for the first time during pregnancy (2, 3). This has been the widely used definition of GDM for many years, but it presents limitations in terms of the non-possible verification of the preexisting hyperglycemia (4). Hyperglycemia universal routine screening is not available for women at childbearing age before conception or in the first semester, so although GDM can take place at any time during pregnancy, it is more frequently diagnosed after the 24^th week of gestation (1, 4).

GDM is highly associated with obesity. Obesity is a growing major public health problem worldwide (5). In 2016, the estimated age-standardized prevalence of obesity and overweight among adult women of the European Region was 24.5% and 54.3%, respectively (6). This prevalence is expected to continue rising in the next years (7, 8). Being overweight (body mass index [BMI] 25.0-29.9 kg/m²) or obese (BMI ≥30.0 kg/m²) is the most important modifiable risk factor for GDM. The risk is up to 5-fold higher in morbidly obese women, when compared to women with normal body weight (9). Other modifiable risk factors for GDM comprise unhealthy dietary factors, physical inactivity, and cigarette smoking (10). Moreover, the gradual increase in the mean age at childbearing of women in Europe (from 28.8 years in 2013 to 29.3 years in 2018) has an important role in the prevalence of GDM, given that advanced maternal age is a well-known risk factor for GDM (11). The chances of developing GDM increment with previous history of GDM, macrosomia, excessive gestational weight gain, spontaneous abortion, fetal anomalies, preeclampsia, fetal demise, neonatal hypoglycemia, hyperbilirubinemia, and neonatal respiratory distress syndrome family history of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), polycystic ovary syndrome, parity, non-white ancestry also increment (10, 12).

GDM has potentially serious short- and long-term consequences. The condition is associated with various adverse maternal, fetal, and perinatal outcomes, including but not limited to, preeclampsia, preterm delivery, cesarean section delivery, large for gestational age (LGA) newborns, neonatal hypoglycemia, and Neonatal Intensive Care Unit admission (13). The Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes (HAPO) study reported a continuous association between maternal glucose levels and increased frequency of adverse outcomes, however, there was no obvious threshold at which risk increased (13). Furthermore, the gestational programming and intrauterine fetal exposure to hyperglycemia is an independent risk factor for obesity, hypertension and T2DM in the offspring (14, 15). GDM may play a crucial role in increasing the prevalence of T2DM in women. In the European Region, about 9.6% of women ≥ 25 years old have diabetes (16). A meta-analysis reported a 7-fold increased risk of T2DM in women with GDM compared with those without GDM (17).

Comparing data on GDM is a challenge since there is a lack of universally accepted screening standards and diagnostic criteria. Diagnostic criteria have changed over time and remain controversial, but there has been a move towards the adoption of the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) recommendations (18–20). Using the systematic review and meta-analysis approach to understand the regional, sub-regional, and national prevalence of GDM will help the introduction of effective public health measures and enable highlighting the gaps in evidence, following the Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting (GATHER) (21).

The previously published meta-analysis on the GDM prevalence in Europe was limited to only developed countries in Europe excluding immigrants who did not originate from those developed countries (22). Also, the same meta-analysis was limited to only women tested for GDM in their second or third trimesters (22). To overcome these limitations and provide a more comprehensive and informative assessment on the GDM prevalence in Europe, the present systematic review included all countries in the European region according to the definition of the United Nations (UN) geoscheme and regardless of the original of the included pregnant women. In the present review, the literature search covers a wider range of countries (51 countries) in the European continent regardless of the development status, the origin of the study population, and pregnancy trimester. Moreover, our meta-analyses considered extracting, whenever possible, stratified estimates of the GDM rather than using the overall prevalence reported in the primary studies following a prioritized one-stratification scheme. Indeed, pooling stratified estimates would provide more precise findings on the national, sub-regional, and regional prevalence of GDM. As such, this systematic review and meta-analysis method quantifies the weighted prevalence of GDM in Europe, at regional, sub-regional, and national levels, between 2014 and 2019, according to and regardless of the maternal age, trimester, maternal weight, and GDM diagnostic criteria. It is believed that this study of the 51 countries of the European region regardless of their development will complement the scientific literature, providing more insights into the prevalence of GDM at the subregional level as countries within each subregion in the European continent might have not the same development status interpreted as a limitation in the previous systematic review (22).

Methods

Protocol and Registration

We have developed and registered our protocol on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020161857). This systematic review and meta-analysis follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement (23). The PRISMA checklist is provided elsewhere (see Supplementary Table S1 ).

This systematic review and meta-analysis from prevalence studies in Europe is part of a major study that aims to estimate the prevalence of GDM in different regions in the world. From the same project, the first systematic review and meta-analysis providing findings on the prevalence of GDM in the Middle East and North Africa region has been already completed and submitted for a peer-reviewed journal (24).

Eligibility Criteria

The search strategy was limited to English language publications between January 2006 and December 2019 and defined in accordance with our population, exposure, comparator, and outcome (PECO) criteria. The population included in this study were all pregnant women tested for GDM during their pregnancy, living in the European region according to the definition of the United Nations (UN) geoscheme (25). All included studies had at least ten pregnant women tested for GDM and reported the prevalence of GDM for their sample or have reported data that allowed us to calculate the GDM prevalence, regardless of the age, trimester, pregnancy status, or GDM ascertainment methodology. However, due to the high number of studies retrieved from databases, we restricted the inclusion criteria to only include studies published between 2014 and 2019.

All studies reporting prevalence estimates on GDM were considered eligible. For this specific systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on the European region, we have excluded studies from the other regions of the globe and studies using unclear GDM diagnostic criteria, unless studies from medical records. These decisions made by the research team were due to the high volume of eligible studies and to produce less potentially biased and more precise estimates on the GDM prevalence.

Information Sources and Search

A specific search strategy was developed by the principal investigators and a medical librarian expert. The initial search was developed on PubMed-MEDLINE using varied Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and free-text terms and then translated into EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Sciences, and Cochrane Library, comprising five electronic databases ( Supplementary Table S2 ).

Study Selection

We have used the Covidence software (26, 27) to perform study selection. All citations identified by our search strategy were uploaded into Covidence where duplicates were automatically removed. Two reviewers independently screened the studies for titles and abstracts and subsequently identified potential eligible full-text articles. Conflicts and discrepancies that emerged during the two stages of screening were solved by a third reviewer. The reference lists of eligible studies were also screened to identify additional studies that might have been missed.

Data Abstraction Process and Data Items

The data we have extracted include the study ID, article type, publication year, journal, country, city, study design, data collection period, population, sample size, sampling strategy, age, pregnancy trimester when GDM was tested, GDM criteria used for diagnosis ascertainment, strata used on the population of the study, the prevalence of GDM in the study sample and by strata whenever available. Furthermore, in research reports presenting more stratified GDM prevalence and at least ten tested subjects per strata, we have extracted the stratified prevalence of GDM following a priority list to avoid double counting: comorbidity, parity, age, pre-gestational BMI, ethnicity, year, placental location, nationality, and occupation. Where there was no stratification on the prevalence of GDM, the overall prevalence was extracted. All relevant data were introduced into a predesigned Excel sheet using string codes and numerical variables. We considered a research report a single publication that might contain data from several studies (each one on a specific population group). In reports where the main study design does not report a clear prevalence, we have extracted the original study design of the report and we have calculated the prevalence of GDM accordingly. In reports where the GDM was ascertained using more than one criterion, the most sensitive and reliable assessment (e.g., fasting glucose blood test vs. self-reported) was considered as well as the most recent criteria (e.g., The American Diabetes Association ADA 2010 vs. ADA 2006).

Summary Measures and Synthesis of Results

To estimate the weighted pooled prevalence of GDM and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), we performed meta-analyses of the extracted data. The Freeman–Tukey double arcsine transformation method was applied to stabilize the variances of the prevalence measures (28). The inverse variance method was used to weight the estimated pooled prevalence measures (29). Dersimonian–Laird random-effects model was used to estimate the overall pooled GDM prevalence (30). Cochran’s Q statistic and the inconsistency index I-squared (I ²), were calculated to measure heterogeneity. Along with the pooled estimates, ranges and median were also reported to describe the dispersion of the GDM prevalence measures reported in the literature. The prediction interval, which estimates the 95% interval in which the true prevalence of GDM in a new study will lie, was also quantified and reported (31).

The overall, country-level and sub-regional levels [Eastern Europe, Northern Europe, Western Europe, and Southern Europe (25)] pooled GDM prevalence was estimated. Moreover, within each sub-European region, the pooled GDM prevalence estimates were generated overall and based on age (<30, ≥30, or unclear age group), pregnancy trimester (first, second, third, or unclear trimester), BMI (normal, overweight, obsess, or unclear BMI), and GDM ascertainment criteria. The provision of pooled estimates regardless of the ascertainment guidelines was justified by the fact that the women were defined and treated as GDM patients following each specific ascertainment guideline. We conducted a synthesis of results including the above-described meta-analysis also comprises a description of the main findings relevant to the study.

Risk of Bias (RoB)

To test the robustness of the implemented methodology, quality of evidence criteria was also used GDM ascertainment method, sampling methodology, and precision of the estimate. The risk of bias (RoB) tool was performed for each research report and not for individual studies, using the six-quality items adapted from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NIH) criteria (32). From the 14 items of the NIH RoB tool we used research question/objective, studied population, participation rate, recruitment, sample size justification, and outcome measures and assessment. Reports were considered to have “high” precision if at least 100 women were tested for GDM. We computed the overall proportion of research reports with potentially low RoB across each of these nine quality criteria and the proportion (out of nine) of quality items with a potentially low RoB for each of the included research reports.

Publication Bias

The small-study effect on the pooled GDM prevalence estimates was explored through plotting the funnel plot. In the funnel plot, each GDM prevalence measure was plotted against its standard error. The asymmetry of the funnel plot was tested using Egger’s test (33).

Analyses were performed using the metaprop (34) and metareg packages in Stata/SE v15 (35).

Results

Study Selection

After de-duplication, 15,933 records were screened and 547 full-text research reports critically assessed for eligibility, 133 research reports were deemed eligible and included in the meta-analysis ( Figure 1 ).

Figure 1 PRISMA flowchart. • Reasons for full-text exclusion: 214 GDM or DM total population 78 Wrong setting 29 Not in Europe 24 GDM Prevalence was incalculable 23 reported an unclear ascertainment of GDM criteria (I report containing information front Albania, 3 from Denmark, 2 from Finland, 2 from Ireland, 5 front Italy, I from Netherlands, 2 f:om Poland, 2 from Portugal, 2 from Spain, and 3 from United Kingdom). 15 reports have duplicate data [I from Croatia (30), I from France (31), I from Italy (32), 2 from Netherlands (33,34),6 from Norway (35-40), and 4 from United Kingdom (41-44)], and only the report that first published the study data was used. 9 Conference abstract with not enough information 8 Case-control (GDM vs. non-GDM) 7 Duplicates 6 Wrong patient population 1 Year of GDM diagnosis is UNCLEAR (Not mentioned). (Figure not reproduced here; see the original article.)

Study Characteristics

The 133 research reports related to 24 countries in Europe and tested a total of 15,572,847 pregnant women for GDM and yielded 254 GDM prevalence studies. The majority of the research reports were reported from Northern Europe (59/133), followed by Southern Europe (36/133), Western Europe (32/133), and Eastern Europe (6/133). Across the four UN geoscheme sub-regions (25) the most studied countries were Italy (21 reports) and the United Kingdom (14 reports). Tables 1– 4 summarize basic characteristics of the included research articles in the four European sub-regions.

Eastern Europe

From the Eastern Europe countries (Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, and Ukraine), our search has just captured six reports that tested a total of 12,122 pregnant women for GDM from Hungary (two reports), Poland (three reports), and Republic of Macedonia (one report). In two out of the eight GDM prevalence studies reported in these three countries, GDM ascertainment was based on the Polish Gynecological Society Guidelines ( Table 1 ).

Northern Europe

From Northern Europe sub-region (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden, and United Kingdom), there were 59 reports presenting estimates on GDM prevalence. None of those reports were from Estonia or Latvia. Seven reports reporting 17 GDM prevalence studies were from Denmark, 10 reports with 22 GDM prevalence studies were from Finland, one report with three GDM prevalence studies were from Iceland, seven reports with 10 GDM prevalence studies were from Ireland, two reports with three GDM prevalence studies were from Lithuania, nine reports with 19 GDM prevalence were studies from Norway, nine reports with 20 GDM prevalence were studies from Sweden and 14 reports with 28 GDM prevalence studies were from the United Kingdom. In the 122 GDM prevalence studies that tested a total of 10,278,921 pregnant women reported in the Northern European countries, the IADPSG (in 15 out of 122 studies) followed by the WHO 2013 (in 14 out of 122 studies) were the most common used GDM diagnostic ( Table 2 ).

Western Europe

From Western Europe sub-region (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, and Switzerland). In this sub-region, the majority of the 32 research reports were in France (34.4%) followed by Germany (18.8%), Austria (15.6%), and Switzerland (15.6%). Our study did not find any prevalence studies on GDM from three countries (Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, and Monaco) in this sub-region reported between 2014 and 2019. In the 55 GDM prevalence studies that tested a total of 4,212,723 pregnant women in the Western European countries, the IADPSG (in 14 studies) was the most commonly used GDM diagnostic ( Table 3 ).

Southern Europe

From Southern Europe sub-region (Albania, Andorra, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Greece, Italy, Malta, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Portugal, San Marino, Serbia, Slovenia, and Spain), there were 36 research reports, of which, the majority were from Italy (58.3%) followed by 19.4% were from Spain. Between 2014 and 2019, there were no prevalence studies on GDM from Albania, Andorra, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Portugal, San Marino, and Serbia. In the 69 GDM prevalence studies that tested a total of 1,069,081 pregnant women, the IADPSG was the most common GDM ascertainment criteria used (30.4%) ( Table 4 ).

Weighted GDM Prevalence

In the 15,572,847 pregnant women tested for GDM the weighted GDM prevalence estimated was 10.9% (95% CI: 10.0–11.8%, I² , 100%) in the 24 countries out of a total of 48 countries in Europe. Of the tested pregnant women, 76.6% were from three countries: Sweden (48%), France (20.0%), and Norway (8.6%). From the represented countries in our analysis, Sweden (Northern Europe) shows the lowest weighted GDM prevalence of 1.8% (95% CI: 1.5–2.2, I² , 99.9%) ( Table 5 ). The highest observed national-based prevalence of 66.1% from a single study in the Republic of Moldova has contributed to the observed highest weighted GDM prevalence in the Eastern Europe sub-region ( Table 5 ).

Sub-Regional Weighted GDM Prevalence

The highest sub-regional weighted GDM prevalence observed in the three Eastern European countries (31.5%, 95% CI: 19.8–44.6, I² , 98.9%), followed by 12.3% (95% CI:10.9–13.9, I² , 99.6%) in Southern Europe, 10.7% (95% CI: 9.5–12.0, I² , 99.9%) in Western Europe, and 8.9% (95% CI: 7.9–10.0, I² , 100.0%) in Northern Europe.

Sub-Group Analysis

The weighted prevalence of GDM was significantly higher in pregnant women ≥30 years old (15.4%, I², 99.8%) compared with 15–29 years old women (7.2%, I² , 99.6%), in their third (18.4%, I², 99.8%) compared with second trimester (12.5%, I² , 99.9%) of pregnancy, in obese (23.1%, I² , 98.3%) and overweight (7.8%, I2, 99.5%) compared with normal weight (3.4%, I² , 99.4%) pregnant women.

This observation was comparable in the four sub-regions, whenever data was available. In the Northern European sub-region that comprised 48.0% of the GDM prevalence studies and tested 66.0% of the pregnant women in Europe, the weighted prevalence of GDM was 1.86-time higher in pregnant women ≥30 years old (13.4%, I², 99.7%) compared with younger women (7.2%, I² , 99.7%), 1.83-time higher in the third trimester (18.0%, 95% CI: 10.0–27.7, I² , 99.8%) compared with the second trimester (9.8%, 95% CI: 7.6–12.2, I² , 99.9%), 4.2-time and 14.1-time higher in obese (31.1%, 95% CI: 26.5–35.8, I² , 0.0%) compared with overweight (7.4%) and normal weight (2.2%) women, respectively. In all sub-regions, there was a significant variation (p<0.001) in the weighted GDM prevalence between the used GDM ascertainment guidelines ( Supplementary Table S3 ).

Risk of Bias (RoB)

The results of the four RoB domains assessed and the six quality of evidence items from NIH are presented in ( Figure 2 ). Overall, the RoB and quality of evidence showed a significant low RoB with domains like the study population and research question having 100% of high quality of evidence. Recruitment and outcomes measurement were also rated with high quality of evidence in 97%, while sample size justification was unclear for 70% of the studies. Regarding RoB, GDM ascertainment and precision were low for 4% and 5%, respectively. While the response rate and sampling methodology were considered high for 14% and 10%, respectively ( Figure 2 ).

Figure 2 Risk of Bias assesment of the 132 reviewed research reports on GDM. RoB1: GDM ascertainment (1: biological assay/medical records; 2: self-reported; 3: unclear) RoB2: Sampling methodology (1: probability-based ''random, consecutive, or whole population within a specified period of time''; 2: non-probability based; 3: unclear) RoB3: Response rate (1:<80%; 2:80%) RoB4: Precision (1: tested sample size100; 2: tested sample size <100) NIH-1: Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated? 1: Low risk of bias (ROB), 2: High ROB, 3: Unclear ROB NIH-2: Was the study population clearly specified and defined? 1: Low ROB, 2: High ROB, 3: Unclear ROB NIH-3: Was the participation rate of eligible persons at least 50%? 1: Low ROB, 2: High ROB, 3: Unclear ROB NIH-3: Was the participation rate of eligible persons at least 50%? 1: Low ROB, 2: High ROB, 3:Unclear ROB prespecified and applied uniformly to ail participants? 1: Low ROB, 2: High ROB, 3: Unclear ROB NIH-5: Was a sample size justification, power description, or variance and effect estimates provided? 1: Low ROB, 2: High ROB, 3: Unclear ROB NIH-11: Were the outcome measures (dependent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? 1: Low ROB, 2: High ROB, 3: Unclear ROB. (Figure not reproduced here; see the original article.)

Publication Bias

Graphically, the funnel plot shows a potential of publication bias and small-study effect (Egger’s test, p < 0.001) on the estimated pooled prevalence ( Supplementary Figure S1 ).

Discussion

Summary of Evidence

This systematic review and meta-analysis research summarizes the prevalence of GDM in Europe based on 133 reports comprising data of 254 single studies reported between 2014 and 2019 in 24 countries. Most of these studies were from Italy and the United Kingdom. The overall estimated prevalence of GDM in the 24 countries from the entire European Region was lower (10.9%, 95% CI: 10.0–11.8, I² : 100%) than the estimates reported by the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) for 2019 (16.3%) (168) and higher than a previous meta-analysis (5.4%, 95% CI: 3.8–7.8) conducted by Eades and colleagues (22). Differences in the population estimates (and countries) might explain the variation between the reports. IDF has included data of 39 countries and only for women aged 20-45 years old (168) and Eades and colleagues included only 12 countries (22). A descriptive study revising the global GDM prevalence points to Europe as the region with the lowest GDM prevalence with a median of 6.1 (range 1.8%-31.0%) (169), in our study, the median estimate was 9.9 (range 0.2%-78%).

Considering the four sub-regions of Europe, the Eastern region presented the highest GDM prevalence (31.5%, 95% CI: 19.8–44.6, I² : 98.9%), followed by Southern Europe (12.3%, 95% CI: 10.9–13.9, I² : 99.6%), Western Europe (10.7%, 95% CI: 9.5–12.0, I² : 99.9%), and Northern Europe (8.9%, 95% CI: 7.9–10.0, I² : 100). A review of the literature from 2000-2009 is consistent with these results presenting the lowest GDM prevalence for the European northern or Atlantic seaboard countries in comparison with the Southern or Mediterranean countries (170). The Eastern (and Southern regions were also the two regions with the smallest number of studies included, 4.5% and 27.1% respectively, due to the lack of identified reports from these countries. These results highlight the need for good quality and standardized epidemiological studies in these two regions, not to mention the 25 countries that are not represented in our study. We have assessed full-text studies from some countries like Albania and Portugal that were potentially eligible to be considered but as the GDM ascertainment criteria was not clear, therefore they were excluded for not meeting our criteria.

The Republic of Moldova has the highest GDM prevalence across the entire region (66.1%, 95% CI 19.8-44.6%, I²: 98.9%), followed by Poland, Austria, Cyprus, and Malta. Sweden has the lowest GDM prevalence followed by Belgium, Norway, Croatia, and Denmark. The IDF 2019 Diabetes Atlas presents GDM prevalence for 12 countries in the region and their estimated prevalence is within our confidence interval for France, Ireland, Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden (168). For Norway, Spain, and the UK their estimates are higher than ours. These findings may suggest the recent higher reported rates for GDM prevalence compared with previous years as our review comprises data from 2014-2019 and there is just for 2019.

In women with a history of GDM, lifestyle interventions and medical treatment decreased the progression of T2DM by up to 40% (171). Therefore, GDM becomes a public health priority issue as it poses a significant health burden, not only to these pregnancies but also to the future health of both mothers and offspring. In this way, the diagnosis and management of GDM can represent an opportunity for intervention to reduce the burden of T2DM. Strategies to prevent T2DM may incorporate hyperglycemia screening 4 to 12 weeks after the post-partum as recommended by the most recent guidelines from ADA (12).

Differences in the GDM criteria used in the different countries and sub-regions also play an important role in the differences of prevalence reported and most importantly in the heterogeneity of our meta-analysis estimations. It is known that there is a poor consensus and uniformity in the diagnosis of GDM, as our study demonstrates, by having 24 different criteria used. This fact is to be considered as well with the recent criteria updates, specifically from the WHO in 2013. The differences in GDM criteria allied with the different countries’ screening guidelines (e.g., universal GDM screening vs screening for women with risk factors) introduce heterogeneity to the meta-analysis and increases the challenge of comparing the prevalence across countries and regions. Standardized studies and policies across the European region would help to tackle the GDM public health burden.

Strengths, Implications, and Limitations

This study has used a comprehensive search strategy to review all the studies of GDM in Europe at the regional, sub-regional, and national levels. The study includes a huge number of reports and single estimates that were combined. Estimating a weighted GDM prevalence based on a huge number (over 15 million) of tested pregnant women provides the best-precise estimation of the burden of GDM in the included European countries. Additionally, estimating the pooled GDM prevalence among various pregnant women population groups according to age, trimester of GDM diagnosis, maternal body weight, also provides specific estimates in this population group to priorities action and screening strategies. As mentioned above, the range of GDM per country varied widely therefore we are not able to extrapolate the reported GDM prevalence for the European countries not represented in our estimates, the sub-regions itself and even within the countries, as the case of the Republic of Moldova, Iceland, and Malta that are included in our analysis with one single report. Another potential limitation is the lack of or small number of studies from specific countries which might not reflect the reality of the region. Therefore, interpreting the present findings should be exercised in the light of this important potential limitations.

Conclusions

The overall GDM prevalence in Europe is considerable, particularly for pregnant women in Eastern European countries. Epidemiological studies focusing on GDM and using standardized GDM criteria would be crucial to better estimate the national, sub-regional, and regional GDM of Europe as GDM has serious public health implications for the life of the mothers and newborns. This systematic review and meta-analysis findings highlight these implications and aim to contribute to the vigilant public health awareness campaigns about the risk factors associated with developing GDM in Europe and globally.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/ Supplementary Material . Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics Statement

There are no primary data used in this review. There is no need for any ethical approval or an exemption letter according to the United Arab Emirates University-Human Research Ethics Committee.

Author Contributions

RHA conceptualized and designed the study. MSP assessed the eligibility of the retrieved citations in the titles/abstracts and full-text screening phases. RHA, NA, and MSP critically assessed the eligible studies and extracted data. RHA and NA performed the analysis. MSP and RB-S wrote the initial draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Funding

This systematic review was funded by the Summer Undergraduate Research Experience (SURE) PLUS-Grant of the United Arab Emirates University, 2017 (Research grant: 31M348). The funder had no role in the study design, collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data, nor in writing and the decision to submit this article for publication.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

1. DukeL Fereira de MouraA de LapertosaS HammondL JacobsE KaundalA . IDF Diabetes Atlas 9th edition 2019. Int Diabetes Fed Diabetes Atlas, Ninth Ed. (2019). Available at: https://www.diabetesatlas.org/en/ [Accessed February 21, 2021].
2. World Health Organization . Diagnostic Criteria and Classification of Hyperglycaemia First Detected in Pregnancy. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO (2013). Available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/85975 [Accessed February 21, 2021].24199271 PubMed
3. MetzgerBE GabbeSG PerssonB LoweLP DyerAR OatsJJN . International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups Recommendations on the Diagnosis and Classification of Hyperglycemia in Pregnancy. Diabetes Care Am Diabetes Assoc (2010) 33:e98–8. Response to Weinert. doi: 10.2337/dc10-0719 PMC282753020190296 doi:10.2337/dc10-0719 PubMed
4. Association AD . 2. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2021. Diabetes Care (2021) 44(Supplement 1):S15–33. doi: 10.2337/dc21-S002 doi:10.2337/dc21-S002
5. Di CesareM BenthamJ StevensGA ZhouB DanaeiG LuY . Trends in Adult Body-Mass Index in 200 Countries From 1975 to 2014: A Pooled Analysis of 1698 Population-Based Measurement Studies With 19.2 Million Participants. Lancet (2016) 387(10026):1377–96. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30054-X PMC761513427115820 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30054-X PubMed
6. WHO Regional Office for Europe . Health for All Explorer - European Health Information Gateway (2018). Available at: https://gateway.euro.who.int/en/hfa-explorer/#1iMRgJreZp.
7. PinedaE Sanchez-RomeroLM BrownM JaccardA JewellJ GaleaG . Forecasting Future Trends in Obesity Across Europe: The Value of Improving Surveillance. Obes Facts (2018) 11(5):360–71. doi: 10.1159/000492115 PMC625709930308509 doi:10.1159/000492115 PubMed
8. JanssenF BardoutsosA VidraN . Obesity Prevalence in the Long-Term Future in 18 European Countries and in the USA. Obes Facts (2020) 13(5):514–27. doi: 10.1159/000511023 PMC767033233075798 doi:10.1159/000511023 PubMed
9. LutsivO MahJ BeyeneJ McdonaldSD . The Effects of Morbid Obesity on Maternal and Neonatal Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses. Obes Rev (2015) 16(7):531–46. doi: 10.1111/obr.12283 25912896 doi:10.1111/obr.12283 PubMed
10. David McIntyreH JensenDM JensenRC KyhlHB JensenTK GlintborgD . Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Does One Size Fit All? A Challenge to Uniform Worldwide Diagnostic Thresholds. Diabetes Care (2018) 41(7):1339–42. doi: 10.2337/dc17-2393 29559508 doi:10.2337/dc17-2393 PubMed
11. European Commission . Women Are Having Their First Child at an Older Age [Internet]. Products Eurostat News - Eurostat (2020). Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/DDN-20200515-2.
12. American Diabetes Association . Management of Diabetes in Pregnancy: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2021. Diabetes Care (2021) 44(Supplement 1):S200–10. doi: 10.2337/dc21-S014 doi:10.2337/dc21-S014
13. MetzgerBE LoweLP DyerAR TrimbleER SheridanB HodM . Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) Study: Associations With Neonatal Anthropometrics. Diabetes (2009) 58(2):453–9. doi: 10.2337/db08-1112 PMC262862019011170 doi:10.2337/db08-1112 PubMed
14. DabeleaD . The Predisposition to Obesity and Diabetes in Offspring of Diabetic Mothers. Diabetes Care (2007) 30:S169–74. doi: 10.2337/dc07-s211 17596467 doi:10.2337/dc07-s211 PubMed
15. LoweWL ScholtensDM LoweLP KuangA NodzenskiM TalbotO . Association of Gestational Diabetes With Maternal Disorders of Glucose Metabolism and Childhood Adiposity. JAMA J Am Med Assoc (2018) 320(10):1005–16. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.11628 PMC614310830208453 doi:10.1001/jama.2018.11628 PubMed
16. World Health Organization . WHO/Europe | Diabetes Epidemic in Europe (2011). Available at: https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/noncommunicable-diseases/diabetes/news/news/2011/11/diabetes-epidemic-in-europe.
17. BellamyL CasasJP HingoraniAD WilliamsD . Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus After Gestational Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Lancet (2009) 373(9677):1773–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60731-5 19465232 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60731-5 PubMed
18. Wah CheungN MosesRG . Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Is it Time to Reconsider the Diagnostic Criteria? Diabetes Care (2018) 41:1337–8. doi: 10.2337/dci18-0013 29934476 doi:10.2337/dci18-0013 PubMed
19. HodM KapurA McIntyreHD . Evidence in Support of the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups’ Criteria for Diagnosing Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Worldwide in 2019. Am J Obstet Gynecol (2019) 221(2):109–16. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.01.206 30682358 doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2019.01.206 PubMed
20. EganAM VellingaA HarreiterJ SimmonsD DesoyeG CorcoyR . Epidemiology of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus According to IADPSG/WHO 2013 Criteria Among Obese Pregnant Women in Europe. Diabetologia (2017) 60(10):1913–21. doi: 10.1007/s00125-017-4353-9 PMC644887528702810 doi:10.1007/s00125-017-4353-9 PubMed
21. StevensGA AlkemaL BlackRE BoermaJT CollinsGS EzzatiM . Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting: The GATHER Statement. PloS Med (2016) 13(6):e1002056. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002056 27351744PMC4924581 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002056 PubMed
22. EadesCE CameronDM EvansJMM . Prevalence of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Europe: A Meta-Analysis. Diabetes Res Clin Pract (2017) 129:173–81. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2017.03.030 28531829 doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2017.03.030 PubMed
23. LiberatiA AltmanDG TetzlaffJ MulrowC GøtzschePC IoannidisJPA . The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration. PloS Med (2009) 6(7):e1000100. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 19621070PMC2707010 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 PubMed
24. Al-RifaiRH AbdoNM PauloMS SabaS AhmedL . Prevalence of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in the Middle East and North Africa, 2000–2019: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) (2021) 12. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2021.668447 PMC842730234512543 doi:10.3389/fendo.2021.668447 PubMed
25. United Nations Statistics Division . Methdoology - Standard Country or Area Codes for Statistical Use. New York, USA: Statistics Division United Nations (1999).
26. BabineauJ . Product Review: Covidence (Systematic Review Software). JCHLA / JABSC (2014) 35(2):68–71. doi: 10.5596/c14-016 doi:10.5596/c14-016
27. Covidence . Covidence - Better Systematic Review Management . Available at: https://www.covidence.org/home.
28. FreemanMF TukeyJW . Transformations Related to the Angular and the Square Root. Ann Math Stat (1950) 21(4):607–11. doi: 10.1214/aoms/1177729756 doi:10.1214/aoms/1177729756
29. MillerJJ . The Inverse of the Freeman-Tukey Double Arcsine Transformation. Am Stat (1978) 32(4):138. doi: 10.1080/00031305.1978.10479283 doi:10.1080/00031305.1978.10479283
30. DerSimonianR LairdN . Meta-Analysis in Clinical Trials Revisited. Contemp Clin Trials (2015) 45(Pt A):139–45. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2015.09.002 PMC463942026343745 doi:10.1016/j.cct.2015.09.002 PubMed
31. BorensteinM RothsteinH HedgesL HigginsJ . Introduction to Meta-Analysis. West Sussex, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (2011). 450 p. doi: 10.1002/9780470743386.fmatter doi:10.1002/9780470743386.fmatter
32. National Heart Lung and Blood Institute . Study Quality Assessment Tools - NHLBI. NIH (2016). Available at: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools [Accessed November 21, 2018].
33. SterneJAC EggerM . Funnel Plots for Detecting Bias in Meta-Analysis: Guidelines on Choice of Axis. J Clin Epidemiol (2001) 54(10):1046–55. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(01)00377-8 11576817 doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(01)00377-8 PubMed
34. NyagaVN ArbynM AertsM . Metaprop: A Stata Command to Perform Meta-Analysis of Binomial Data. Arch Public Heal (2014) 72(1):1–10. doi: 10.1186/2049-3258-72-39 PMC437311425810908 doi:10.1186/2049-3258-72-39 PubMed
35. StataCorp . Stata Statistical Software: Realease 16. Texas, USA: StataCorp (2017).
36. RénesL BarkaN GyurkovitsZ PaulikE NémethG OrvosH . The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine Predictors of Caesarean Section-a Cross-Sectional Study in Hungary. J Matern Neonatal Med (2018) 1–8. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2017.1285888 28110607 doi:10.1080/14767058.2017.1285888 PubMed
37. KunA SzabóE TornoczkyJ KerenyiZ TabákÁG . Increasing Prevalence of Gestational Diabetes According to the Results of a Population-Based Screening Programme in Hungary Between 2009-2017. (2018). Available at: https://www.easd.org/virtualmeeting/home.html#!resources/increasing-prevalence-of-gestational-diabetes-according-to-the-results-of-a-population-based-screening-programme-in-hungary-between-2009-2017-ab604c0c-d02c-4fbe-8475-146eefdfdc23 [Accessed April 28, 2020].
38. Mac-MarcjanekK ZieleniakA WozniakL Zurawska-KlisM CyprykK OklaP . Comparison of Leukocyte IL6 Expression in Patients With Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) Diagnosed by the Polish Diabetes Association (PDA) 2011 and 2014 Criteria. Endokrynol Pol (2017) 68(3):317–25. doi: 10.5603/EP.a2017.0014 28353315 doi:10.5603/EP.a2017.0014 PubMed
39. Kosinska-KaczynskaK SzymusikI KaczynskiB WielgosM . Observational Study of Associations Between Gestational Weight Gain and Perinatal Outcomes in Dichorionic Twin Pregnancies. Int J Gynecol Obstet (2017) 138(1):94–9. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.12171 28388825 doi:10.1002/ijgo.12171 PubMed
40. SzymusikI KosinskiP Kosinska-KaczynskaK WarzechaD KarwackaA KaczynskiB . Academy’s Paper The First Trimester Aneuploidy Biochemical Markers in IVF/ICSI Patients Have No Additional Benefit Compared to Spontaneous Conceptions in the Prediction of Pregnancy Complications. J Perinat Med (2018) 46(9):953–9. doi: 10.1515/jpm-2017-0199 29216009 doi:10.1515/jpm-2017-0199 PubMed
41. BrankicaK ValentinaVN SlagjanaSK SashaJM . Maternal 75-G OGTT Glucose Levels as Predictive Factors for Large-for-Gestational Age Newborns in Women With Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Arch Endocrinol Metab (2016) 60(1):36–41. doi: 10.1590/2359-3997000000126 26909480PMC10118908 doi:10.1590/2359-3997000000126 PubMed
42. BonnesenB OddgeirsdóttirHL NaverKV JørgensenFS NilasL . Women With Minor Menstrual Irregularities Have Increased Risk of Preeclampsia and Low Birthweight in Spontaneous Pregnancies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand (2016) 95(1):88–92. doi: 10.1111/aogs.12792 26453458 doi:10.1111/aogs.12792 PubMed
43. MedekH HalldorssonT GunnarsdottirI GeirssonRT . Physical Activity of Relatively High Intensity in Mid-Pregnancy Predicts Lower Glucose Tolerance Levels. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand (2016) 95(9):1055–62. doi: 10.1111/aogs.12931 27228200 doi:10.1111/aogs.12931 PubMed
44. HolstS KjærSK JørgensenME DammP JensenA . Fertility Problems and Risk of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Nationwide Cohort Study. Fertil Steril (2016) 106(2):427–434.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.03.040 27068302 doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.03.040 PubMed
45. JeppesenC MaindalHT KristensenJK OvesenPG WitteDR . National Study of the Prevalence of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Among Danish Women From 2004 to 2012. Scand J Public Health (2017) 45(8):811–7. doi: 10.1177/1403494817736943 29059007 doi:10.1177/1403494817736943 PubMed
46. HamannCR EgebergA WollenbergA GislasonG SkovL ThyssenJP . Pregnancy Complications, Treatment Characteristics and Birth Outcomes in Women With Atopic Dermatitis in Denmark. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol (2019) 33(3):577–87. doi: 10.1111/jdv.15256 30242910 doi:10.1111/jdv.15256 PubMed
47. Strand-HolmKM FuglsangJ OvesenPG MaimburgRD . Diabetes Mellitus and Lower Genital Tract Tears After Vaginal Birth: A Cohort Study. Midwifery (2019) 69:121–7. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2018.11.010 30500727 doi:10.1016/j.midw.2018.11.010 PubMed
48. KoivusaloSB RönöK KlemettiMM RoineRP LindströmJ ErkkolaM . Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Can Be Prevented by Lifestyle Intervention: The Finnish Gestational Diabetes Prevention Study (RADIEL): A Randomized Controlled Trial. Diabetes Care (2016) 39(1):24–30. doi: 10.2337/dc15-0511 26223239 doi:10.2337/dc15-0511 PubMed
49. EllenbergA SarvilinnaN GisslerM UlanderV-M . New Guidelines for Screening, Diagnosing, and Treating Gestational Diabetes - Evaluation of Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes in Finland From 2006 to 2012. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand (2017) 96(3):372–81. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13074 27925166 doi:10.1111/aogs.13074 PubMed
50. KoivunenS TorkkiA BloiguA GisslerM PoutaA KajantieE . Towards National Comprehensive Gestational Diabetes Screening - Consequences for Neonatal Outcome and Care. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand (2017) 96(1):106–13. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13030 27682191 doi:10.1111/aogs.13030 PubMed
51. MeiniläJ ValkamaA KoivusaloSB Stach-LempinenB RönöK LindströmJ . Is Improvement in the Healthy Food Intake Index (HFII) Related to a Lower Risk for Gestational Diabetes? Br J Nutr (2017) 117(8):1103–9. doi: 10.1017/S0007114517001015 28535829 doi:10.1017/S0007114517001015 PubMed
52. LaineMK KautiainenH GisslerM RainaM AahosI JärvinenK . Gestational Diabetes in Primiparous Women–Impact of Age and Adiposity: A Register-Based Cohort Study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand (2018) 97(2):187–94. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13271 29194561 doi:10.1111/aogs.13271 PubMed
53. LaineMK KautiainenH GisslerM RainaM AahosI JärvinenK . Short Primiparous Women are at an Increased Risk for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Public Health (2018) 156:101–8. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2017.12.020 29408185 doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2017.12.020 PubMed
54. GirchenkoP TuovinenS Lahti-PulkkinenM LahtiJ SavolainenK HeinonenK . Maternal Early Pregnancy Obesity and Related Pregnancy and Pre-Pregnancy Disorders: Associations With Child Developmental Milestones in the Prospective PREDO Study. Int J Obes (2018) 42(5):995–1007. doi: 10.1038/s41366-018-0061-x 29686379 doi:10.1038/s41366-018-0061-x PubMed
55. KongL NilssonIAK GisslerM LavebrattC . Associations of Maternal Diabetes and Body Mass Index With Offspring Birth Weight and Prematurity Supplemental Content. JAMA Pediatr (2019) 173(4):371–8. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.5541 PMC645027030801637 doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.5541 PubMed
56. EllfolkM LeinonenMK GisslerM Lahesmaa-KorpinenA-M SaastamoinenL NurminenM-L . Second-Generation Antipsychotics and Pregnancy Complications. Eur J Clin Pharmacol (2020) 76:107–15. doi: 10.1007/s00228-019-02769-z 31680189 doi:10.1007/s00228-019-02769-z PubMed
57. IjäsH KoivunenS RaudaskoskiT KajantieE GisslerM VääräsmäkiM . Independent and Concomitant Associations of Gestational Diabetes and Maternal Obesity to Perinatal Outcome: A Register-Based Study. PloS One (2019) 14(8):1–11. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221549 PMC671519931465425 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0221549 PubMed
58. TryggvadottirEA MedekH GeirssonRT GunnarsdottirI . Association Between Healthy Maternal Dietary Pattern and Risk for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Eur J Clin Nutr Adv Online Publ (2015) 70:237–42. doi: 10.1038/ejcn.2015.145 26350393 doi:10.1038/ejcn.2015.145 PubMed
59. LindsayKL KennellyM CullitonM SmithT MaguireOC ShanahanF . Probiotics in Obese Pregnancy do Not Reduce Maternal Fasting Glucose: A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Trial (Probiotics in Pregnancy Study). Am J Clin Nutr (2014) 99(6):1432–9. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.113.079723 24646819 doi:10.3945/ajcn.113.079723 PubMed
60. DalyN StapletonM O’KellyR KinsleyB DalyS TurnerMJ . The Role of Preanalytical Glycolysis in the Diagnosis of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Obese Women. Am J Obstet Gynecol (2015) 213(1):84.e1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.03.022 25772210 doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2015.03.022 PubMed
61. MoneF AdamsB MandersonJG McauliffeFM . The East Timorese: A High-Risk Ethnic Minority in UK Obstetrics: A Cohort Study. J Matern Neonatal Med (2015) 28(13):1594–7. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2014.962507 25189758 doi:10.3109/14767058.2014.962507 PubMed
62. MooreR AdlerH JacksonV LawlessM ByrneM EoganM . Impaired Glucose Metabolism in HIV-Infected Pregnant Women: A Retrospective Analysis. Int J STD AIDS (2016) 27(7):581–5. doi: 10.1177/0956462415587625 25999164 doi:10.1177/0956462415587625 PubMed
63. O’deaA TierneyM DanylivA GlynnLG McguireBE CarmodyLA . Screening for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Primary Versus Secondary Care: The Clinical Outcomes of a Randomised Controlled Trial. Diabetes Res Clin Pract (2016) 117:55–63. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2016.04.0230168-8227/O 27329023 doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2016.04.0230168-8227/O PubMed
64. FarrenM DalyN McKeatingA KinsleyB TurnerMJ DalyS . The Prevention of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus With Antenatal Oral Inositol Supplementation: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Diabetes Care (2017) 40(6):759–63. doi: 10.2337/dc16-2449 28325784 doi:10.2337/dc16-2449 PubMed
65. DalyN FarrenM McKeatingA O’KellyR StapletonM TurnerMJ . A Medically Supervised Pregnancy Exercise Intervention in Obese Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Obstet Gynecol (2017) 130(5):1001–10. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002267 29016485 doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000002267 PubMed
66. RamonienėG MaleckienėL NadišauskienėRJ BartusevičienėE RailaitėDR MačiulevičienėR . Maternal Obesity and Obstetric Outcomes in a Tertiary Referral Center. Med (2017) 53(2):109–13. doi: 10.1016/j.medici.2017.03.003 28462873 doi:10.1016/j.medici.2017.03.003 PubMed
67. MalakauskienėL NadišauskienėRJ RamašauskaitėD BartusevičienėE RamonienėG MaleckienėL . Is it Necessary to Postpone Pregnancy After Bariatric Surgery: A National Cohort Study. J Obstet Gynaecol (Lahore) [Internet] (2019) 0(0):1–5. doi: 10.1080/01443615.2019.1634024 31478432 doi:10.1080/01443615.2019.1634024 PubMed
68. RasmussenS IrgensL EspinozaJ . Maternal Obesity and Excess of Fetal Growth in Pre-Eclampsia. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol (2014) 121(11):1351–8. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12677 24589129 doi:10.1111/1471-0528.12677 PubMed
69. SommerC MørkridK JenumAK SletnerL MosdølA BirkelandKI . Weight Gain, Total Fat Gain and Regional Fat Gain During Pregnancy and the Association With Gestational Diabetes: A Population-Based Cohort Study. Int J Obes (2013) 38:76–81. doi: 10.1038/ijo.2013.185 24051503 doi:10.1038/ijo.2013.185 PubMed
70. HelsethR SalvesenO StafneSN MorkvedS SalvesenKA CarlsenSM . Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Among Nordic Caucasian Women: Prevalence and Risk Factors According to WHO and Simplified IADPSG Criteria. Scand J Clin Lab Invest (2014) 74(7):620–8. doi: 10.3109/00365513.2014.928942 24980704 doi:10.3109/00365513.2014.928942 PubMed
71. LeirgulE BrodwallK GreveG VollsetSE HolmstrømH TellGS . Maternal Diabetes, Birth Weight, and Neonatal Risk of Congenital Heart Defects in Norway, 1994-2009. Obstet Gynecol (2016) 128(5):1116–25. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001694 27741197 doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000001694 PubMed
72. GarnæsKK MørkvedS SalvesenØ MoholdtT . Exercise Training and Weight Gain in Obese Pregnant Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial (ETIP Trial). PloS Med (2016) 13(7):1–18. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002079 PMC496139227459375 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002079 PubMed
73. SorbyeLM SkjaervenR KlungsoyrK MorkenNH . Gestational Diabetes Mellitus and Interpregnancy Weight Change: A Population-Based Cohort Study. PloS Med (2017) 14(8):1–11. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002367 PMC553863328763446 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002367 PubMed
74. LehmannS BaghestanE BørdahlPE Muller IrgensL RasmussenSA . Trial of Labor After Cesarean Section in Risk Pregnancies: A Population-Based Cohort Study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand (2019) 98(7):894–904. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13565 30737767 doi:10.1111/aogs.13565 PubMed
75. SoleKB StaffAC LaineK . The Association of Maternal Country of Birth and Education With Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy: A Population-Based Study of 960 516 Deliveries in Norway. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand (2018) 97(10):1237–47. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13393 29873810 doi:10.1111/aogs.13393 PubMed
76. MagnusMC WilcoxAJ MorkenN-H WeinbergCR HåbergSE . Role of Maternal Age and Pregnancy History in Risk of Miscarriage: Prospective Register Based Study. BMJ (2019) 364:869. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l869 PMC642545530894356 doi:10.1136/bmj.l869 PubMed
77. LindqvistM PerssonM LindkvistM MogrenI . No Consensus on Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Screening Regimes in Sweden: Pregnancy Outcomes in Relation to Different Screening Regimes 2011 to 2012, a Cross-Sectional Study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth (2014) 14(1):185. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-185 24884711PMC4055242 doi:10.1186/1471-2393-14-185 PubMed
78. NilssonC AnderssonC UrsingD StrevensH Landin-OlssonM . Outcomes of Women With Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Sweden. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol (2015) 193:132–5. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.07.021 26295790 doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.07.021 PubMed
79. StokkelandK LudvigssonJF HultcrantzR EkbomA HöijerJ BottaiM . Increased Risk of Preterm Birth in Women With Autoimmune Hepatitis – A Nationwide Cohort Study. Liver Int (2016) 36(1):76–83. doi: 10.1111/liv.12901 26098001 doi:10.1111/liv.12901 PubMed
80. SundelinHEK StephanssonO HultmanCM LudvigssonJF . Pregnancy Outcomes in Women With Autism: A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study. Clin Epidemiol (2018) 10:1817–26. doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S176910 PMC628089530555264 doi:10.2147/CLEP.S176910 PubMed
81. StogianniA LendahlsL Landin-OlssonM ThunanderM . Obstetric and Perinatal Outcomes in Pregnancies Complicated by Diabetes, and Control Pregnancies, in Kronoberg, Sweden. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth (2019) 19(1):159. doi: 10.1186/s12884-019-2269-8 31064335PMC6505274 doi:10.1186/s12884-019-2269-8 PubMed
82. CrumpC SundquistJ WinklebyMA SundquistK . Preterm Birth and Risk of Chronic Kidney Disease From Childhood Into Mid-Adulthood: National Cohort Study. BMJ (2019) 365:1–8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l1346 PMC649067431043374 doi:10.1136/bmj.l1346 PubMed
83. HildénK HansonU PerssonM MagnusonA SimmonsD FadlH . Gestational Diabetes and Adiposity Are Independent Risk Factors for Perinatal Outcomes: A Population Based Cohort Study in Sweden. Diabetes Med (2019) 36(2):151–7. doi: 10.1111/dme.13843 PMC659011130698864 doi:10.1111/dme.13843 PubMed
84. KhashanAS EvansM KublickasM McCarthyFP KennyLC StenvinkelP . Erratum: Preeclampsia and Risk of End Stage Kidney Disease: A Swedish Nationwide Cohort Study. PloS Med (2019) 16(7):e1002875. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002875 31361741PMC6667103 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002875 PubMed
85. LiuC AhlbergM HjernA StephanssonO . Perinatal Health of Refugee and Asylum-Seeking Women in Sweden 2014-17: A Register-Based Cohort Study. Eur J Public Health (2019) 29(6):1048–55. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckz120 PMC689697631274154 doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckz120 PubMed
86. FarrarD FairleyL WrightJ TuffnellD WhitelawD LawlorDA . Evaluation of the Impact of Universal Testing for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus on Maternal and Neonatal Health Outcomes: A Retrospective Analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth (2014) 14(1):1–8. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-317 25199524PMC4167281 doi:10.1186/1471-2393-14-317 PubMed
87. WestJ LawlorD FairleyL WrightJ . Differences in Socioeconomic Position, Lifestyle and Health-Related Pregnancy Characteristics Between Pakistani and White British Women in the Born in Bradford Prospective Cohort Study: The Influence of the Woman’s, Her Partner’s and Their Parents’ Place of Birth. BMJ Open (2014) 4:1–12. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004805 PMC406782524948746 doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004805 PubMed
88. SyngelakiA PastidesA KotechaR WrightA AkolekarR NicolaidesKH . First-Trimester Screening for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Based on Maternal Characteristics and History. Fetal Diagn Ther (2015) 38(1):14–21. doi: 10.1159/000369970 25531073 doi:10.1159/000369970 PubMed
89. ThomasS PostonUL PasupathyD PatelMBBS N SandallJ Seed CStatPT . Eff Ect of a Behavioural Intervention in Obese Pregnant Women (the UPBEAT Study): A Multicentre, Randomised Controlled Trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol (2015) 3:767–77. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(15)00227-2 26165396 doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(15)00227-2 PubMed
90. SovioU MurphyHR SmithGCS . Accelerated Fetal Growth Prior to Diagnosis of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Prospective Cohort Study of Nulliparous Women. Diabetes Care (2016) 39:982–7. doi: 10.2337/dc16-0160 27208333 doi:10.2337/dc16-0160 PubMed
91. MurphyA NAB . Compliance With National Institute of Health and Care Excellence Risk-Based Screening for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Nulliparous Women. Item Type Article Risk-Based Screening for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Nulliparous Women. Eur J Obs Gynecol Reprod Biol (2016) 199:60–5. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.01.044 26901398 doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.01.044 PubMed
92. WhiteSL LawlorDA BrileyAL GodfreyKM NelsonSM Oteng-NtimE . Early Antenatal Prediction of Gestational Diabetes in Obese Women: Development of Prediction Tools for Targeted Intervention. PloS One (2016) 11(12):1–17. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0167846 PMC514520827930697 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0167846 PubMed
93. HannaFW DuffCJ Shelley-HitchenA HodgsonE FryerAA . Diagnosing Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Implications of Recent Changes in Diagnostic Criteria and Role of Glycated Haemoglobin (HbA1c). Clin Med J R Coll Physicians London (2017) 17(2):108–13. doi: 10.7861/clinmedicine.17-2-108 PMC629760728365618 doi:10.7861/clinmedicine.17-2-108 PubMed
94. PanaitescuAM SyngelakiA ProdanN AkolekarR NicolaidesKH . Chronic Hypertension and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome: A Cohort Study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol (2017) 50(2):228–35. doi: 10.1002/uog.17493 28436175 doi:10.1002/uog.17493 PubMed
95. HallE FranklinM RajasingamD ChandiramaniM ReidA AtkinsonR . Introducing a New Model of Care for Women With Gestational Diabetes. Diabet Med (2018) 35(Supplement 1):174.
96. BalaniJ HyerS ShehataH MoharebF . Visceral Fat Mass as a Novel Risk Factor for Predicting Gestational Diabetes in Obese Pregnant Women. Obstet Med (2018) 11(3):121–5. doi: 10.1177/1753495X17754149 PMC613435130214477 doi:10.1177/1753495X17754149 PubMed
97. NzeluD Dumitrascu-BirisD HuntKF CordinaM KametasNA . Pregnancy Outcomes in Women With Previous Gestational Hypertension: A Cohort Study to Guide Counselling and Management. Pregnancy Hypertens (2018) 12:194–200. doi: 10.1016/j.preghy.2017.10.011 29113718 doi:10.1016/j.preghy.2017.10.011 PubMed
98. VieiraMC BegumS SeedPT BadranD BrileyAL GillC . Gestational Diabetes Modifies the Association Between PlGF in Early Pregnancy and Preeclampsia in Women With Obesity. Pregnancy Hypertens (2018) 13(June):267–72. doi: 10.1016/j.preghy.2018.07.003 PMC613074530177064 doi:10.1016/j.preghy.2018.07.003 PubMed
99. WagnildJM HinshawK PollardTM . Associations of Sedentary Time and Self-Reported Television Time During Pregnancy With Incident Gestational Diabetes and Plasma Glucose Levels in Women at Risk of Gestational Diabetes in the UK. BMC Public Health (2019) 19(1):1–8. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-6928-5 31092217PMC6521349 doi:10.1186/s12889-019-6928-5 PubMed
100. BozkurtL GöblCS PfliglL LeitnerK Bancher-TodescaD LugerA . Pathophysiological Characteristics and Effects of Obesity in Women With Early and Late Manifestation of Gestational Diabetes Diagnosed by the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups Criteria. J Clin Endocrinol Metab (2015) 100(3):1113–20. doi: 10.1210/jc.2014-4055 PMC433304325574889 doi:10.1210/jc.2014-4055 PubMed
101. TramontanaA DieplingerB StanglG HafnerE DieplingerH . First Trimester Serum Afamin Concentrations Are Associated With the Development of Pre-Eclampsia and Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Pregnant Women. Clin Chim Acta (2018) 476:160–6. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2017.11.031 29191735 doi:10.1016/j.cca.2017.11.031 PubMed
102. TramontanaA PablikE StanglG HartmannB DieplingerH HafnerE . Accepted Manuscript Combination of First Trimester Serum Afamin Levels and Three-Dimensional Placental Bed Vascularization as a Possible Screening Method to Detect Women at-Risk for Adverse Pregnancy Complications Like Pre-Eclampsia and Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Low-Risk Pregnancies. Placenta (2017) 62:9–15. doi: 10.1016/j.placenta.2017.12.014 29405972 doi:10.1016/j.placenta.2017.12.014 PubMed
103. KöningerA IannacconeA HajderE FrankM SchmidtB SchleussnerE . Afamin Predicts Gestational Diabetes in Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Patients Preconceptionally. Endocr Connect (2019) 8(5):616–24. doi: 10.1530/EC-19-0064 PMC651071330991357 doi:10.1530/EC-19-0064 PubMed
104. WeissC OppeltP MayerRB . MATERNAL-FETAL MEDICINE The Participation Rate of Migrant Women in Gestational Diabetes Screening in Austria: A Retrospective Analysis of 3293 Births. Arch Gynecol Obstet (2019) 299:345–51. doi: 10.1007/s00404-018-4964-5 PMC639442430460613 doi:10.1007/s00404-018-4964-5 PubMed
105. BenhalimaK RobynsK Van CrombruggeP DeprezN SeynhaveB DevliegerR . The Effectiveness of Financial Incentives for Smoking Cessation During Pregnancy: Is it From Being Paid or From the Extra Aid? BMC Pregnancy Childbirth (2012) 12:24. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-12-24 22471787PMC3338379 doi:10.1186/1471-2393-12-24 PubMed
106. De MunckN BelvaF Van De VeldeH VerheyenG StoopD . Closed Oocyte Vitrification and Storage in an Oocyte Donation Programme: Obstetric and Neonatal Outcome. Hum Reprod (2016) 31(5):1024–33. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dew029 26936884 doi:10.1093/humrep/dew029 PubMed
107. GrunewaldD LahoreauD BurgelPR ChapronJ HonoreI KanaanR . Dietary Management of Pregnant Women With Cystic Fibrosis. J Cystic Fibrosis (2014) 13:S101. doi: 10.1016/S1569-1993(14)60348-9 doi:10.1016/S1569-1993(14)60348-9
108. Goire MiailheG KayemG GirardG Lè Ne LegardeurH MandelbrotL . Selective Rather Than Universal Screening for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus? §. Eur J Obstet Gynecol (2015) 191:95–100. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.05.003 26112365 doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.05.003 PubMed
109. GoueslardK CottenetJ MarietA-S GiroudM CottinY PetitJ-M . Early Cardiovascular Events in Women With a History of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Cardiovasc Diabetol (2016) 15:15. doi: 10.1186/s12933-016-0338-0 26817691PMC4728938 doi:10.1186/s12933-016-0338-0 PubMed
110. RegnaultN MoutengouE Fosse-EdorhS BarryY BillionnetC WeillA . Gestational Diabetes Mellitus, Screening Practices, and Association With Social Deprivation: Data From the 788,494 Women Who Delivered in France in 2013. Diabetes (2016) 65:A359. doi: 10.2337/db16-861-1374 doi:10.2337/db16-861-1374
111. MortierI BlancJ ToselloB GireC BretelleF CarcopinoX . Is Gestational Diabetes an Independent Risk Factor of Neonatal Severe Respiratory Distress Syndrome After 34 Weeks of Gestation? A Prospective Study. Arch Gynecol Obstet (2017) 296(6):1071–7. doi: 10.1007/s00404-017-4505-7 28948345 doi:10.1007/s00404-017-4505-7 PubMed
112. Boudet-BerquierJ SalanaveB DesenclosJ-C CastetbonK . Sociodemographic Factors and Pregnancy Outcomes Associated With Prepregnancy Obesity: Effect Modification of Parity in the Nationwide Epifane Birth-Cohort. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth (2017) 17(1):1–17. doi: 10.1186/s12884-017-1456-8 28841845PMC5574108 doi:10.1186/s12884-017-1456-8 PubMed
113. BillionnetC MitanchezD WeillA NizardJ AllaF HartemannA . Gestational Diabetes and Adverse Perinatal Outcomes From 716,152 Births in France in 2012. Diabetologia (2017) 60(4):636–44. doi: 10.1007/s00125-017-4206-6 PMC651837328197657 doi:10.1007/s00125-017-4206-6 PubMed
114. MitanchezD JacqueminetS NizardJ TanguyML CianguraC LacorteJM . Effect of Maternal Obesity on Birthweight and Neonatal Fat Mass: A Prospective Clinical Trial. PloS One (2017) 12(7):1–15. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0181307 PMC553150028750045 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0181307 PubMed
115. MarieC LégerS GuttmannA RivièreO MarchisetN LémeryD . Exposure to Arsenic in Tap Water and Gestational Diabetes: A French Semi-Ecological Study. Environ Res (2018) 161:248–55. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2017.11.016 29169099 doi:10.1016/j.envres.2017.11.016 PubMed
116. PreaubertL Vincent-RohfritschA SantulliP GayetV GoffinetF Le RayC . Outcomes of Pregnancies Achieved by Double Gamete Donation: A Comparison With Pregnancies Obtained by Oocyte Donation Alone. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol (2018) 222:1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.12.026 29309921 doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.12.026 PubMed
117. SoomroMH BaizN HuelG YazbeckC BottonJ HeudeB . Exposure to Heavy Metals During Pregnancy Related to Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Diabetes-Free Mothers. Sci Total Environ (2019) 656:870–6. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.422 30625673 doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.422 PubMed
118. StuberT KunzelE ZollnerU RehnM WockelA HonigA . Prevalence and Associated Risk Factors for Obesity During Pregnancy Over Time. GeFra Sci (2015) 75:923–8. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1557868.pdf PMC459669926500368 doi:10.1055/s-0035-1557868.pdf PubMed
119. BeyerleinA KollerD ZieglerAG LackN MaierW . Does Charge-Free Screening Improve Detection of Gestational Diabetes in Women From Deprived Areas: A Cross-Sectional Study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth (2016) 16(1):1–6. doi: 10.1186/s12884-016-1060-3 27613387PMC5016952 doi:10.1186/s12884-016-1060-3 PubMed
120. TamayoT TamayoM RathmannW PotthoffP . Prevalence of Gestational Diabetes and Risk of Complications Before and After Initiation of a General Systematic Two-Step Screening Strategy in Germany (2012-2014). Diabetes Res Clin Pract (2016) 115:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2016.03.001 27242116 doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2016.03.001 PubMed
121. MelchiorH Kurch-BekD MundM . Prävalenz Des Gestationsdiabetes: Eine Populationsbasierte Leistungsdatenanalyse Des Screenings in Der Ambulanten Versorgung. Dtsch Arztebl Int (2017) 114(24):412–8. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2017.0412 PMC549950528669379 doi:10.3238/arztebl.2017.0412 PubMed
122. KöningerA MathanA MachP FrankM SchmidtB SchleussnerE . Is Afamin a Novel Biomarker for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus? A Pilot Study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol (2018) 16(1):1–11. doi: 10.1186/s12958-018-0338-x 29587878PMC5870691 doi:10.1186/s12958-018-0338-x PubMed
123. PahlitzschTMJ HanneL HenrichW WeichertA . Influence of Foetal Macrosomia on the Neonatal and Maternal Birth Outcome. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd (2019) 79(11):1191–8. doi: 10.1055/a-0880-6182 PMC684673831736508 doi:10.1055/a-0880-6182 PubMed
124. Lamain-de RuiterM KweeA NaaktgeborenCA de GrootI EversIM GroenendaalF . External Validation of Prognostic Models to Predict Risk of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in One Dutch Cohort: Prospective Multicentre Cohort Study. BMJ (2016) 354:i4338. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4338 27576867 doi:10.1136/bmj.i4338 PubMed
125. KoningSH van ZandenJJ HoogenbergK LutgersHL KlompAW KortewegFJ . New Diagnostic Criteria for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus and Their Impact on the Number of Diagnoses and Pregnancy Outcomes. Diabetologia (2018) 61(4):800–9. doi: 10.1007/s00125-017-4506-x PMC644906329167927 doi:10.1007/s00125-017-4506-x PubMed
126. De WildeMA Lamain-De RuiterM Veltman-VerhulstSM KweeA LavenJS LambalkCB . Increased Rates of Complications in Singleton Pregnancies of Women Previously Diagnosed With Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Predominantly in the Hyperandrogenic Phenotype. Fertil Steril Ò (2017) 108:333–73. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.06.015 28778282 doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.06.015 PubMed
127. MosimannB AmylidiS RischL WiedemannU SurbekD BaumannM . First-Trimester Placental Growth Factor in Screening for Gestational Diabetes. Fetal Diagn Ther (2016) 39(4):287–91. doi: 10.1159/000441027 26421599 doi:10.1159/000441027 PubMed
128. AmylidiS MosimannB StettlerC FiedlerGM SurbekD RaioL . First-Trimester Glycosylated Hemoglobin in Women at High Risk for Gestational Diabetes. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand (2016) 95(1):93–7. doi: 10.1111/aogs.12784 26400192 doi:10.1111/aogs.12784 PubMed
129. Ryser RuetschiJ JornayvazF RivestR HuhnE IrionO BoulvainM . Fasting Glycaemia to Simplify Screening for Gestational Diabetes. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol (2016) 123(13):2223. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13876 26810795 doi:10.1111/1471-0528.13876 PubMed
130. HorschA KangJS VialY EhlertU BorghiniA Marques-VidalP . Stress Exposure and Psychological Stress Responses Are Related to Glucose Concentrations During Pregnancy. Br J Health Psychol (2016) 21(3):712–29. doi: 10.1111/bjhp.12197 27169679 doi:10.1111/bjhp.12197 PubMed
131. SavopolH FontanaE RichliM MagninJL Ben AliN DucryN . Abstracts of 52nd EASD Annual Meeting. Diabetologia (2016) 59(S1):1–581.2753914710.1007/s00125-016-4046-9PMC7096097 doi:10.1007/s00125-016-4046-9 PubMed
132. DjakovićI Sabolović RudmanS GallV KošecA Markuš SandrićM KošecV . Do Changing Diagnostic Criteria For Gestational Diabetes Influence Pregnancy Outcome? Acta Clin Croat (2016) 55(3):422. doi: 10.20471/acc.2016.55.03.11 29045107 doi:10.20471/acc.2016.55.03.11 PubMed
133. DjelmisJ PavićM Mulliqi KotoriV Pavlić RenarI IvanisevicM OreskovicS . Prevalence of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus According to IADPSG and NICE Criteria. Int J Gynecol Obstet (2016) 135(3):250–4. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2016.07.005 27612531 doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2016.07.005 PubMed
134. ErjavecK PoljičaninT MatijevićR . Impact of the Implementation of New WHO Diagnostic Criteria for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus on Prevalence and Perinatal Outcomes: A Population-Based Study. J Pregnancy (2016) 2016:1–7. doi: 10.1155/2016/2670912 PMC520962728097023 doi:10.1155/2016/2670912 PubMed
135. AbdulleA AlnaeemiA AljunaibiA Al AliA Al SaediK Al ZaabiE . The UAE Healthy Future Study: a Pilot for a Prospective Cohort Study of 20,000 United Arab Emirates Nationals. BMC Public Health. (2018) 18:101. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-5012-2 PMC575540229304844 doi:10.1186/s12889-017-5012-2 PubMed
136. InancliIS YayciE AtacagT UncuM . Is Maternal Vitamin D Associated With Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Pregnant Women in Cyprus? Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol (2016) 43(6):840–3. doi: 10.12891/ceog3152.2016 29944234 doi:10.12891/ceog3152.2016 PubMed
137. VassilakiM ChatziL GeorgiouV PhilalithisA KritsotakisG KoutisA . Pregestational Excess Weight, Maternal Obstetric Complications and Mode of Delivery in the Rhea Cohort in Crete. Eur J Public Health (2015) 25(4):632–7. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/cku246 25788472 doi:10.1093/eurpub/cku246 PubMed
138. TrottaF Da CasR SpilaS GramegnaM VenegoniM ZocchettiC . Evaluation of Safety of A/H1N1 Pandemic Vaccination During Pregnancy: Cohort Study. BMJ (2014) 348:1–11. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g3361 PMC403813324874845 doi:10.1136/bmj.g3361 PubMed
139. PintaudiB Di ViesteG CorradoF LucisanoG PellegriniF GiuntaL . Improvement of Selective Screening Strategy for Gestational Diabetes Through a More Accurate Definition of High-Risk Groups. Eur J Endocrinol (2014) 170(1):87–93. doi: 10.1530/EJE-13-0759 24114434 doi:10.1530/EJE-13-0759 PubMed
140. CasertaD BordiG StegagnoM FilippiniF PodagrosiM RoselliD . Maternal and Perinatal Outcomes in Spontaneous Versus Assisted Conception Twin Pregnancies. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol (2014) 174(1):64–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.12.011 24405729 doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.12.011 PubMed
141. LacariaE LencioniC RussoL RomanoM LemmiP BattiniL . Selective Screening for GDM in Italy: Application and Effectiveness of National Guidelines. J Matern Neonatal Med (2015) 28(15):1842–4. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2014.969701 25260129 doi:10.3109/14767058.2014.969701 PubMed
142. D’AnnaR Di BenedettoA ScilipotiA SantamariaA InterdonatoML PetrellaE . Myo-Inositol Supplementation for Prevention of Gestational Diabetes in Obese Pregnant Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Obstet Gynecol (2015) 126(2):310–5. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000958 26241420 doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000000958 PubMed
143. PinzautiS FerrataC VannucciniS RienzoG SeveriFM PetragliaF . Twin Pregnancies After Assisted Reproductive Technologies: The Role of Maternal Age on Pregnancy Outcome. Eur J Obstet Gynecol (2016) 206:198–203. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.09.019 27723551 doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.09.019 PubMed
144. CapulaC ChiefariE BorelliM OliverioR VeroA FotiD . A New Predictive Tool for the Early Risk Assessment of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Prim Care Diabetes (2016) 10(5):315–23. doi: 10.1016/j.pcd.2016.05.004 27268754 doi:10.1016/j.pcd.2016.05.004 PubMed
145. SantamariaA Di BenedettoA PetrellaE PintaudiB CorradoF D’AnnaR . Myo-Inositol may Prevent Gestational Diabetes Onset in Overweight Women: A Randomized, Controlled Trial. J Matern Neonatal Med (2016) 29(19):3234–7. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2015.1121478 26698911 doi:10.3109/14767058.2015.1121478 PubMed
146. BianchiC RomanoM AragonaM BattiniL Di FilippiM Del PratoS . Abstracts of 52nd EASD Annual Meeting. Diabetologia (2016) 59:1–581. doi: 10.1007/s00125-016-4046-9 27539147PMC7096097 doi:10.1007/s00125-016-4046-9 PubMed
147. Di CianniG GualdaniE BerniC MeucciA RotiL LencioniC . Screening for Gestational Diabetes in Tuscany, Italy. A Population Study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract (2017) 132:149–56. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2017.08.003 28863332 doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2017.08.003 PubMed
148. BordiG D’AmbrosioA GallottaI Di BenedettoL FregaA TorciaF . The Influence of Ovulation Induction and Assisted Conception on Maternal and Perinatal Outcomes of Twin Pregnancies. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci (2017) 21(18):3998–4006.29028104 PubMed
149. ChiefariE PastoreI PuccioL CaroleoP OliverioR VeroA . Impact of Seasonality on Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Endocrine Metab Immune Disord Drug Targets (2017) 17(3):246–52. doi: 10.2174/1871530317666170808155526 28786350 doi:10.2174/1871530317666170808155526 PubMed
150. CozzolinoM SerenaC MaggioL RambaldiMP SimeoneS MelloG . Analysis of the Main Risk Factors for Gestational Diabetes Diagnosed With International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) Criteria in Multiple Pregnancies. J Endocrinol Invest (2017) 40(9):937–43. doi: 10.1007/s40618-017-0646-6 28324453 doi:10.1007/s40618-017-0646-6 PubMed
151. BrunoR PetrellaE BertariniV PedrielliG NeriI FacchinettiF . Adherence to a Lifestyle Programme in Overweight/Obese Pregnant Women and Effect on Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: a Randomized Controlled Trial. Matern Child Nutr (2017) 13(3).10.1111/mcn.12333PMC686603027647837 doi:10.1111/mcn.12333 PubMed
152. BianchiC de GennaroG RomanoM BattiniL AragonaM CorfiniM . Italian National Guidelines for the Screening of Gestational Diabetes: Time for a Critical Appraisal? Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis (2017) 27(8):717–22. doi: 10.1016/j.numecd.2017.06.010 28755805 doi:10.1016/j.numecd.2017.06.010 PubMed
153. MeregagliaM DainelliL BanksH BenedettoC DetzelP FattoreG . The Short-Term Economic Burden of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Italy. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth (2018) 18(1):1–9. doi: 10.1186/s12884-018-1689-1 29471802PMC5824573 doi:10.1186/s12884-018-1689-1 PubMed
154. QuaresimaP ViscontiF ChiefariE PuccioL FotiDP VenturellaR . Barriers to Postpartum Glucose Intolerance Screening in an Italian Population. Int J Environ Res Public Health (2018) 15(12):1–7. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15122853 PMC631359430558120 doi:10.3390/ijerph15122853 PubMed
155. GerliS FavilliA FranchiniD De GiorgiM CasucciP ParazziniF . Is the Robson’s Classification System Burdened by Obstetric Pathologies, Maternal Characteristics and Assistential Levels in Comparing Hospitals Cesarean Rates? A Regional Analysis of Class 1 and 3. J Matern Neonatal Med (2018) 31(2):173–7. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2017.1279142 28056581 doi:10.1080/14767058.2017.1279142 PubMed
156. MasturzoB FranzèV GermanoC AttiniR GennarelliG LezoA . Risk of Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes by Pre-Pregnancy Body Mass Index Among Italian Population: A Retrospective Population-Based Cohort Study on 27,807 Deliveries. Arch Gynecol Obstet (2019) 299(4):983–91. doi: 10.1007/s00404-019-05093-0 30770990 doi:10.1007/s00404-019-05093-0 PubMed
157. ViscontiF QuaresimaP ChiefariE CaroleoP ArcidiaconoB PuccioL . First Trimester Combined Test (FTCT) as a Predictor of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Int J Environ Res Public Health (2019) 16(19):1–10. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16193654 PMC680143331569431 doi:10.3390/ijerph16193654 PubMed
158. MarozioL PicardoE FilippiniC MainolfiE BerchiallaP CavalloF . Maternal Age Over 40 Years and Pregnancy Outcome: A Hospital-Based Survey. J Matern Neonatal Med (2019) 32(10):1602–8. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2017.1410793 29216770 doi:10.1080/14767058.2017.1410793 PubMed
159. XuerebS MagriCJ XuerebRA XuerebRG GaleaJ FavaS . Gestational Glycemic Parameters and Future Cardiometabolic Risk at Medium-Term Follow Up. Can J Diabetes (2019) 43(8):621–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjd.2019.03.007 31080093 doi:10.1016/j.jcjd.2019.03.007 PubMed
160. KekT KuželičkiNK RaščanIM GeršakK . Characteristics of Health Behaviours and Health Status Indicators Among Pregnant Women in Slovenia. Zdr Vestn (2017) 86:295–317. doi: 10.6016/ZdravVestn.2490 doi:10.6016/ZdravVestn.2490
161. GoñiL CuervoM SantiagoS ZazpeI MartínezJA . Influencia De La Paridad Sobre Variables Antropométricas, Estilos De Vida Y Hábitos Alimentarios En Mujeres Embarazadas. Sist Sanit Navar (2014) 37(3):349–62. doi: 10.4321/S1137-66272014000300005 25567389 doi:10.4321/S1137-66272014000300005 PubMed
162. Ruiz-GraciaT DuranA FuentesM RubioMA RunkleI CarreraEF . Lifestyle Patterns in Early Pregnancy Linked to Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Diagnoses When Using IADPSG Criteria. The St Carlos Gestational Study. Clin Nutr (2016) 35(3):699–705. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2015.04.017 25998584 doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2015.04.017 PubMed
163. BerglundSK Torres-EspínolaFJ García-ValdésL SeguraMT Martínez-ZaldívarC PadillaC . The Impacts of Maternal Iron Deficiency and Being Overweight During Pregnancy on Neurodevelopment of the Offspring. Br J Nutr (2017) 118(7):533–40. doi: 10.1017/S0007114517002410 28965494 doi:10.1017/S0007114517002410 PubMed
164. BenaigesD Flores-Le RouxJA MarceloI MañéL RodríguezM NavarroX . Is First-Trimester HbA1c Useful in the Diagnosis of Gestational Diabetes? Diabetes Res Clin Pract (2017) 133:85–91. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2017.08.019 28918341 doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2017.08.019 PubMed
165. Assaf-BalutC García de la TorreN DuránA FuentesM BordiúE Del ValleL . A Mediterranean Diet With Additional Extra Virgin Olive Oil and Pistachios Reduces the Incidence of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM): A Randomized Controlled Trial: The St. Carlos GDM Prevention Study. PloS One (2017) 12(10):1–16. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185873 PMC564812829049303 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0185873 PubMed
166. GortazarL Flores-Le RouxJA BenaigesD SarsanedasE PayàA MañéL . Trends in Prevalence of Gestational Diabetes and Perinatal Outcomes in Catalonia, Spain, 2006 to 2015: The Diagestcat Study. Diabetes Metab Res Rev (2019) 35(5):e3151. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.3151 30865356 doi:10.1002/dmrr.3151 PubMed
167. MañéL Flores-Le RouxJA BenaigesD ChillarónJJ PradosM Pedro-BotetJ . Impact of Overt Diabetes Diagnosed in Pregnancy in a Multi-Ethnic Cohort in Spain. Gynecol Endocrinol (2019) 35(4):332–6. doi: 10.1080/09513590.2018.1521387 30328728 doi:10.1080/09513590.2018.1521387 PubMed
168. International Diabetes Federation . Europe Diabetes Report 2010 — 2045 (2020). Available at: https://diabetesatlas.org/data/en/region/3/eur.html.
169. McIntyreHD CatalanoP ZhangC DesoyeG MathiesenER DammP . Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Nat Rev Dis Primers (2019) 5:1–19. doi: 10.1038/s41572-019-0098-8 31296866 doi:10.1038/s41572-019-0098-8 PubMed
170. BuckleyBS HarreiterJ DammP CorcoyR ChicoA SimmonsD . Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Europe: Prevalence, Current Screening Practice and Barriers to Screening. A Review. Diabetes Med (2012) 29(7):844–54. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2011.03541.x 22150506 doi:10.1111/j.1464-5491.2011.03541.x PubMed
171. ArodaVR ChristophiCA EdelsteinSL ZhangP HermanWH Barrett-ConnorE . The Effect of Lifestyle Intervention and Metformin on Preventing or Delaying Diabetes Among Women With and Without Gestational Diabetes: The Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study 10-Year Follow-Up. J Clin Endocrinol Metab (2015) 100(4):1646–53. doi: 10.1210/jc.2014-3761 PMC439929325706240 doi:10.1210/jc.2014-3761 PubMed