“一步法”和“两步法”妊娠期糖尿病筛查标准与不良妊娠结局的相关性Meta分析

顾玲琪; 缪红; 沈倩影; 李华; 张琳

doi:10.7619/jcmp.202018026

“一步法”和“两步法”妊娠期糖尿病筛查标准与不良妊娠结局的相关性Meta分析

南通大学附属妇幼保健院药事科, 江苏南通, 226018

基金项目:

江苏省重点研发计划(社会发展)项目(BE2015655)

详细信息

通讯作者:
张琳, E-mail: juezhangyan@163.com

中图分类号: R714.25
计量
- 文章访问数: 366
- HTML全文浏览量: 81
- PDF下载量: 13
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2020-06-24
- 网络出版日期: 2020-10-20

A Meta-analysis in correlation between adverse pregnancy outcomes and screening criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus by "one-step" and "two-step" methods

Department of Pharmacy, Maternal and Child Health Care Hospital Affiliated to Nantong University, Nantong, Jiangsu, 226018

摘要

摘要: 目的系统评价"一步法""两步法"妊娠期糖尿病(GDM)筛查标准与不良妊娠结局的相关性。方法计算机检索Medline、Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials、EMBASE、中国知网及万方数据库,检索时间均从建库至2019年8月。收集采用"一步法""两步法"标准对GDM进行诊断的临床随机对照实验(RCTs), 应用RevMan5.3软件对产妇妊娠结局和围产儿结局指标进行荟萃分析,比较"一步法""两步法"标准对GDM检出率、大于胎龄儿(LGA)发生率、新生儿低血糖发生率、NICU入住率、新生儿出生体质量等妊娠结局的影响。结果最终纳入8篇研究论文,共6 553例孕妇。荟萃分析结果显示,与"两步法"相比,"一步法"的GDM检出率较高(P<0.001), 而LGA发生率(P=0.03)、巨大儿发生率(P=0.01)、新生儿低血糖发生率(P<0.001)、NICU入住率(P=0.009)及新生儿出生体质量(P=0.000 8)均较低。结论与"两步法"相比,"一步法"存在更高的GDM检出率,也可以降低LGA、巨大儿、新生儿低血糖发生率、NICU入住率及新生儿出生体质量,可显著改善围产儿结局。
- “一步法” /
- “两步法” /
- 妊娠期糖尿病 /
- 随机对照试验 /
- 大于胎龄儿 /
- 新生儿低血糖 /
- 荟萃分析
Abstract: Objective To systematically evaluate the correlation between adverse pregnancy outcomes and screening criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus by "one-step" and "two-step" methods. Methods Medline, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, EMBASE, CNKI and Wanfang databases were searched from time of foundation to August 2019. Randomized controlled trials(RCTs)diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus(GDM)were collected by using "one-step" and "two-step" standards. The RevMan5.3 software was used to conduct a meta-analysis of maternal pregnancy outcome and perinatal outcome indicators, and to compare the effects of "one-step" and "two-step" standards on GDM detection rate, incidence of largest-age infants(LGA), incidence of neonatal hypoglycemia, NICU occupancy rate, neonatal birth weight and other pregnancy outcomes were compared. Results Eight RCTs literatures with 6 553 pregnant women were included in this study. Meta-analysis showed that when compared with the "two-step" method, the "one-step" method had a higher detection rate of GDM(P<0.001)and lower incidence rates of LGA(P=0.03), macrosomia(P=0.01), neonatal hypoglycemia(P<0.001), NICU occupancy rate(P=0.009)and neonatal birth weight(P=0.000 8). Conclusion Compared with "two-step" method, "one-step" method has a higher detection rate of GDM, and can reduce the incidence rates of LGA, macrosomia and neonatal hypoglycemia, NICU occupancy rate and neonatal birth weight as well as significantly improve perinatal outcomes.
- “one-step” method /
- "two-step" method /
- gestational diabetes mellitus /
- randomized controlled trials /
- largest-age infants /
- neonatal hypoglycemia /
- Meta analysis

HTML全文

参考文献(28)

CROWTHER C A, HILLER J E, MOSS J R, et al. Effect of treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus on pregnancy outcomes[J]. N Engl J Med, 2005, 352(24):2477-2486.

余昕烊, 漆洪波. 加拿大妇产科学会妊娠合并糖尿病临床指南(2016)要点解读[J]. 中国实用妇科与产科杂志, 2017, 33(4):377-382.

HAPO Study Cooperative Research Group, METZGER B E, LOWE L P, et al. Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes[J]. N Engl J Med, 2008, 358(19):1991-2002.

International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups Consensus Panel, METZGER B E, GABBE S G, et al. International association of diabetes and pregnancy study groups recommendations on the diagnosis and classification of hyperglycemia in pregnancy[J]. Diabetes Care, 2010, 33(3):676-685.

UNIGARRO M. Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus[J]. Diabetes Care, 2011, 34(Suppl 1):S62-S69.

WHO Guidelines Approved by the Guidelines Review Committee. Diagnostic criteria and classification of hyperglycaemia first detected in pregnancy[R]. Geneva:World Health Organization, 2013:1-14.

HOD M, PRETTY M, MAHMOOD T, et al. Joint position statement on universal screening for GDM in Europe by FIGO, EBCOG and EAPM[J]. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2018, 228:329-330.

BULLETINS-OBSTETRICS C O P. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 190:Gestational Diabetes Mellitus[J]. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2018, 131(2):e49-e64.

National Institutes of Health. Consensus development conference statement:diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus, March 4-6, 2013[J]. Obstet Gynecol, 2013, 122(2 Pt 1):358-369.

BERGER H, GAGNON R, SERMER M. Diabetes in pregnancy[J]. J Obstet Gynaecol Canada, 2016, 38(7):667-679.

American Diabetes Association. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes:Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2019[J]. Diabetes Care, 2019, 42:S13-S34.

中华医学会妇产科学分会产科学组, 中华医学会围产医学分会妊娠合并糖尿病协作组. 妊娠合并糖尿病诊治指南(2014)[J]. 中华妇产科杂志, 2014, 49(8):561-569.

MELTZER S J, SNYDER J, PENROD J R, et al. Gestational diabetes mellitus screening and diagnosis:a prospective randomised controlled trial comparing costs of one-step and two-step methods[J]. BJOG, 2010, 117(4):407-415.

SEVKET O, ATES S, UYSAL O, et al. To evaluate the prevalence and clinical outcomes using a one-step method versus a two-step method to screen gestational diabetes mellitus[J]. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 2014, 27(1):36-41.

YERAL M I, OZGUERDINC A S, UYGUR D, et al. Prediction of gestational diabetes mellitus in the first trimester, comparison of fasting plasma glucose, two-step and one-step methods:A prospective randomized controlled trial[J]. Endocrine, 2014, 46(3):512-518.

SCIFRESC M, ABEBEK Z, JONESK A, et al. Gestational Diabetes Diagnostic Methods(GD2M)Pilot Randomized Trial[J]. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 2015, 19(7):1472-1480.

SATODIYA M, TAKKAR N, GOEL P, et al. Comparison of One-Step Versus Two-Step Screening for Diagnosis of GDM in Indian Population:A Randomized Controlled Trial[J]. The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India, 2017, 67(3):190-195.

KHALIFEH A, ECKLER R, FELDER L, et al. 39:One-step vs two-step screening for gestational diabetes:a randomized controlled trial[J]. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2018, 218(1):S29-S38.

吴芬英, 李媛, 孟杨南, 等. 两种妊娠糖尿病筛查方法与妊娠结局的关系分析[J]. 中国妇幼健康研究, 2014, 25(2):244-246.

池鸿斐, 黄引平, 王沁芳, 等. 妊娠期糖尿病的不同诊断标准对母婴结局的影响分析[J]. 中国性科学, 2015, 11:108-111.

HILLIER T A, PEDULA K L, SCHMIDT M M, et al. Childhood Obesity and Metabolic Imprinting:The ongoing effects of maternal hyperglycemia[J]. Diabetes Care, 2007, 30(9):2287-2292.

LANDON M B, MELE L, SPONG C Y. The Relationship Between Maternal Glycemia and Perinatal Outcome[J]. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2011, 117(5):1230-1231.

FARRAR D, SIMMONDS M C, BRYANT M, et al. Hyperglycaemia and risk of adverse perinatal outcomes:Systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. BMJ(online), 2016, 354(Suppl 1):i4694-i4704.

LOWE W L J R, SCHOLTENS D M, KUANG A, et al. Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome Follow-up Study(HAPO FUS):Maternal Gestational Diabetes Mellitus and Childhood Glucose Metabolism[J]. Diabetes Care, 2019, 42(3):372-380.

SCHOLTENS D M, KUANG A, LOWE L P, et al. Hyperglycemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome Follow-up Study(HAPO FUS):Maternal Glycemia and Childhood Glucose Metabolism[J]. Diabetes Care, 2019, 42(3):381-392.

XIANG A H, WANG X, MARTINEZ M P, et al. Association of Maternal Diabetes With Autism in Offspring[J]. JAMA, 2015, 313(14):1425.

LI M, FALLIN M D, RILEY A, et al. The Association of Maternal Obesity and Diabetes With Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities[J]. Pediatrics, 2016, 137(2):1-10.

HOSSEINI E, JANGHORBANI M. Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus with one-step or two-step approaches and associations with adverse pregnancy outcomes[J]. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2018, 143(2):137-144.