• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

泰国孕妇中一步法与两步法对妊娠期糖尿病进行普遍筛查的比较:一项随机对照试验。

Comparison of universal screening for gestational diabetes mellitus between one-step and two-step method among Thai pregnant women: A randomized control trial.

作者信息

Phoblap Natthaphon, Jatavan Phudit, Tongsong Theera

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.

出版信息

J Diabetes Investig. 2025 Apr;16(4):728-734. doi: 10.1111/jdi.14370. Epub 2024 Nov 28.

DOI:10.1111/jdi.14370
PMID:39607079
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11970304/
Abstract

AIMS

To compare the prevalence of GDM and pregnancy outcomes between the one-step and two-step methods of universal screening among Thai pregnant women.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was conducted on singleton Thai pregnant women at a gestational age of 24-28 weeks. They were randomly assigned to either the one-step method group (a universal 75-gm 2-h oral glucose tolerance test: OGTT) or the two-step method group (a universal 50-gm oral glucose challenge test followed by a 100-gm 3-h OGTT). The women received standard antenatal care. The prevalence of GDM and obstetric outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 143 women meeting the inclusion criteria were randomly allocated into the one-step group (72 cases) and the two-step group (71 cases). The prevalence of GDM was significantly higher in the one-step group than in the two-step group, with rates of 24/73 (33.3%) vs 8/70 (11.3%); P value 0.002; relative risk of 2.96, 95% CI: 1.43-6.14, respectively. Demographic data and maternal and neonatal outcomes were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The one-step method can markedly increase the prevalence of GDM to nearly three times that of the two-step method, leading to a substantial increase in care costs and burdens without clear benefits. Convincingly, the one-step method as a new approach may not be suitable for universal screening in a busy antenatal care setting, especially in low-resource health centers in developing countries or among populations with a high prevalence of GDM.

摘要

目的

比较泰国孕妇中一步法和两步法通用筛查的妊娠期糖尿病(GDM)患病率及妊娠结局。

方法

对孕周为24 - 28周的泰国单胎孕妇进行随机对照试验。她们被随机分配到一步法组(采用通用的75克2小时口服葡萄糖耐量试验:OGTT)或两步法组(采用通用的50克口服葡萄糖耐量试验,随后进行100克3小时OGTT)。这些妇女接受标准的产前护理。比较GDM患病率和产科结局。

结果

共有143名符合纳入标准的妇女被随机分配到一步法组(72例)和两步法组(71例)。一步法组的GDM患病率显著高于两步法组,分别为24/73(33.3%)和8/70(11.3%);P值为0.002;相对风险为2.96,95%置信区间:1.43 - 6.14。两组之间的人口统计学数据以及母婴结局具有可比性。

结论

一步法可显著提高GDM患病率,几乎是两步法的三倍,在无明显益处的情况下导致护理成本和负担大幅增加。令人信服的是,一步法作为一种新方法可能不适用于繁忙的产前护理环境中的通用筛查,尤其是在发展中国家资源匮乏的健康中心或GDM患病率高的人群中。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3d11/11970304/d17bef106e13/JDI-16-728-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3d11/11970304/d17bef106e13/JDI-16-728-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3d11/11970304/d17bef106e13/JDI-16-728-g001.jpg

相似文献

1
Comparison of universal screening for gestational diabetes mellitus between one-step and two-step method among Thai pregnant women: A randomized control trial.泰国孕妇中一步法与两步法对妊娠期糖尿病进行普遍筛查的比较:一项随机对照试验。
J Diabetes Investig. 2025 Apr;16(4):728-734. doi: 10.1111/jdi.14370. Epub 2024 Nov 28.
2
Screening for gestational diabetes mellitus based on different risk profiles and settings for improving maternal and infant health.基于不同风险特征和环境进行妊娠期糖尿病筛查以改善母婴健康。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Aug 3;8(8):CD007222. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007222.pub4.
3
Different strategies for diagnosing gestational diabetes to improve maternal and infant health.诊断妊娠期糖尿病以改善母婴健康的不同策略。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Aug 23;8(8):CD007122. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007122.pub4.
4
Early universal screening of gestational diabetes in a university hospital in Thailand.泰国某大学医院进行的妊娠期糖尿病早期普遍筛查。
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2022 Aug;42(6):2001-2007. doi: 10.1080/01443615.2022.2068369. Epub 2022 Jun 2.
5
Universal versus selective screening for gestational diabetes mellitus among antenatal clinic attendees in Abakaliki: using the one-step 75 gram oral glucose tolerance test.在阿巴卡利基的产前门诊就诊者中进行普遍筛查与选择性筛查妊娠糖尿病:使用一步法 75 克口服葡萄糖耐量试验。
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021 Oct 29;21(1):735. doi: 10.1186/s12884-021-04168-8.
6
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.瑞典妊娠期糖尿病筛查方案尚无共识:2011年至2012年不同筛查方案与妊娠结局的横断面研究
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014 May 31;14:185. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-14-185.
7
Feto-maternal outcomes in women with and without gestational diabetes mellitus according to the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) diagnostic criteria.根据国际糖尿病与妊娠研究组(IADPSG)诊断标准,患有和未患有妊娠期糖尿病的女性的母婴结局。
Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2013 Oct-Dec;7(4):206-9. doi: 10.1016/j.dsx.2013.10.017. Epub 2013 Nov 14.
8
Screening and diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus.妊娠期糖尿病的筛查与诊断
Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2012 Oct(210):1-327.
9
Screening and subsequent management for gestational diabetes for improving maternal and infant health.为改善母婴健康对妊娠期糖尿病进行筛查及后续管理。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Feb 11(2):CD007222. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007222.pub3.
10
Preference of Women for Gestational Diabetes Screening Method According to Tolerance of Tests and Population Characteristics.根据测试的耐受性和人群特征,女性对妊娠期糖尿病筛查方法的偏好。
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2021 Nov 8;12:781384. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2021.781384. eCollection 2021.

本文引用的文献

1
Prevalence of gestational diabetes in the United States and Canada: a systematic review and meta-analysis.妊娠期糖尿病在美国和加拿大的流行情况:系统评价和荟萃分析。
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2024 Mar 15;24(1):204. doi: 10.1186/s12884-024-06378-2.
2
Lower versus Higher Glycemic Criteria for Diagnosis of Gestational Diabetes.低血糖与高血糖诊断妊娠糖尿病的标准。
N Engl J Med. 2022 Aug 18;387(7):587-598. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2204091.
3
2. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022.2. 糖尿病的分类和诊断:2022 年糖尿病医疗护理标准。
Diabetes Care. 2022 Jan 1;45(Suppl 1):S17-S38. doi: 10.2337/dc22-S002.
4
Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Europe: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prevalence Studies.欧洲妊娠糖尿病:患病率研究的系统评价和荟萃分析。
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2021 Dec 9;12:691033. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2021.691033. eCollection 2021.
5
Increasing prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus when implementing the IADPSG criteria: A systematic review and meta-analysis.实施 IADPSG 标准时妊娠期糖尿病患病率的增加:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2021 Feb;172:108642. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2020.108642. Epub 2021 Jan 13.
6
Prevalence and determinants of gestational diabetes mellitus in Africa based on the updated international diagnostic criteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis.基于最新国际诊断标准的非洲妊娠期糖尿病患病率及影响因素:系统评价与荟萃分析
Arch Public Health. 2019 Aug 6;77:36. doi: 10.1186/s13690-019-0362-0. eCollection 2019.
7
The impact of diagnostic criteria for gestational diabetes on its prevalence: a systematic review and meta-analysis.妊娠期糖尿病诊断标准对其患病率的影响:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2019 Feb 1;11:11. doi: 10.1186/s13098-019-0406-1. eCollection 2019.
8
Prevalence of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Eastern and Southeastern Asia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.东亚和东南亚妊娠期糖尿病的患病率:系统评价和荟萃分析。
J Diabetes Res. 2018 Feb 20;2018:6536974. doi: 10.1155/2018/6536974. eCollection 2018.
9
Comparison of the Screening Tests for Gestational Diabetes Mellitus between "One-Step" and "Two-Step" Methods among Thai Pregnant Women.泰国孕妇中“一步法”和“两步法”妊娠期糖尿病筛查试验的比较
Obstet Gynecol Int. 2018 Feb 8;2018:1521794. doi: 10.1155/2018/1521794. eCollection 2018.
10
ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 190: Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.美国妇产科医师学会临床实践通告第 190 号:妊娠期糖尿病。
Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Feb;131(2):e49-e64. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002501.