Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions | Subscribe | Contacts | Advertise | Login 
Search Article 
Advanced search 
  Users Online: 1932 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size  

Table of Contents
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 19  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 824-828

Comparison of different criteria for diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus

1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India
2 Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India
3 Department of PSM, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India
4 Department of Biostatistics Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India

Date of Web Publication20-Oct-2015

Correspondence Address:
Sadishkumar Kamalanathan
Department of Endocrinology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry - 605 005
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/2230-8210.167550

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: The International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) criteria for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has been adopted by most associations across the world including the American Diabetes Association and World Health Organization (WHO). We conducted a study comparing the IADPSG and previous WHO criteria and their effects on neonatal birth weight. Methods: The study was carried out in Obstetrics and Gynaecology Department of a tertiary care institute in South India in collaboration with Endocrinology Department. Thousand two hundred and thirty-one antenatal cases with at least one risk factor for GDM and gestational age of more than 24 weeks were included in the study. Both criteria were compared on the basis of 75 g oral glucose tolerance test results. Results: The prevalence of GDM using IADPSG and previous WHO criteria were 12.6% and 12.4%, respectively. The prevalence of GDM was 9.9% when both criteria had to be satisfied. Both GDM criteria groups did not differ in neonatal birth weight and macrosomia rate. However, there was a significant increase in lower segment cesarean section in IADPSG criteria group. Elevated fasting plasma glucose alone picked up only one GDM in the previous WHO criteria group. Conclusions: A single 2 h plasma glucose is both easy to perform and economical. A revised WHO criterion using a 2 h threshold of ≥140 mg % can be adopted as a one-step screening and diagnostic procedure for GDM in our country.

Keywords: Gestational diabetes mellitus, International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group, macrosomia, outcomes, World Health Organization

How to cite this article:
Sagili H, Kamalanathan S, Sahoo J, Lakshminarayanan S, Rani R, Jayalakshmi D, Kumar KH. Comparison of different criteria for diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus. Indian J Endocr Metab 2015;19:824-8

How to cite this URL:
Sagili H, Kamalanathan S, Sahoo J, Lakshminarayanan S, Rani R, Jayalakshmi D, Kumar KH. Comparison of different criteria for diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus. Indian J Endocr Metab [serial online] 2015 [cited 2020 Feb 23];19:824-8. Available from: http://www.ijem.in/text.asp?2015/19/6/824/167550

   Introduction Top

Diabetes is one of the most common medical complications of pregnancy. It complicates two to five percent of pregnancies, of which 90% is contributed by gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).[1] GDM has been defined as any degree of glucose intolerance with onset orfirst recognition during pregnancy and does not exclude the possibility that unrecognized glucose intolerance may have antedated or begun concomitantly with pregnancy.[1] It is important to screen for GDM in pregnancy because glucose intolerance is associated with adverse maternal and fetal outcomes and women with history of GDM, and their children are at risk of developing diabetes in future.[2],[3] The hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes study involving 25,505 pregnant women showed that the risk of adverse maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcome increased even within ranges previously considered normal for pregnancy.[4]

Asian women have a fivefold increase in risk of developing GDM compared to Caucasian women.[5] Among the ethnic groups in South Asia, Indian women have the highest incidence of GDM.[6] In India, a community-based study involving 12,056 pregnant women found the prevalence of GDM to be 13.9%.[7] Hence, screening for GDM during pregnancy, especially in high-risk cases has become necessary. Currently, there is no standard single test for diagnosing GDM. Different criteria proposed for the screening of GDM includes American Diabetes Association (ADA) and previous World Health Organization (WHO) criteria. Recently, both ADA and WHO adopted the criteria proposed by International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG).[8],[9],[10] Our study aimed to compare IADPSG and previous WHO criteria for diagnosing GDM and to examine its effects on neonatal birth weight.

   Methods Top

This prospective clinical study was carried out in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in coordination with Department of Endocrinology of a tertiary care medical institute in South India after obtaining ethical committee approval. Antenatal cases of gestational age ≥24 weeks attending outpatient department with any one of the following risk factors for GDM were included in the study: Obesity, chronic hypertension, bad obstetric history e.g. past history of preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, premature delivery, unexplained neonatal death, intrauterine death, stillbirth, delivery of a large infant (≥3.5 kg), recurrent pregnancy loss (≥3 spontaneous abortions infirst or second trimester), and family history of diabetes. Known cases of Type I or Type II diabetes mellitus were excluded from the study. All women satisfying the inclusion criteria were subjected to clinical examination after getting a detailed history and informed consent. Weight and height were obtained from antenatal records. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated by dividing the pre-pregnancy weight in kilograms by the square of height in meters. Venous blood samples were collected from them in fasting, 1 h and 2 h following 75 g of oral glucose load. The plasma glucose was estimated by glucose oxidation and peroxidation method.

All participants were diagnosed as GDM using IADPSG criteria (anyone abnormal value in oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT): Fasting plasma glucose (FPG) ≥5.11 mmol/l, 1 h plasma glucose ≥10 mmol/l and 2 h plasma glucose ≥8.5 mmol/l) and WHO criteria (anyone abnormal value in OGTT: FPG ≥7 mmol/l, and 2 h plasma glucose ≥7.78 mmol/l). They were stratified into the following groups: Normal glucose tolerance (NGT) by both IADPSG and WHO, GDM by IADPSG only, GDM by WHO only, and GDM by both IADPSG and WHO criteria [Figure 1]. Antenatal women diagnosed to have GDM by either IADPSG or WHO criteria were managed initially with medical nutrition therapy and daily moderate exercise for 30 min or more.[11] They were followed up with self-monitoring of blood glucose (after an overnight fast, 2 h after breakfast, 2 h after lunch, and 2 h after dinner) at home. Those having FPG >.28 mmol/l and/or 2 h postprandial plasma glucose >.8 mmol/l (more than 30% of glucose measurements above the recommended value) despite lifestyle modification for 2 weeks were treated either with metformin (1000–1500 mg daily) or insulin according to patient's choice. Those with FPG >.1 mmol/l in OGTT were given human regular and NPH insulin subcutaneous injections directly. The patients were followed up to delivery. The preterm delivery, if any and the mode of delivery (lower segment cesarean section [LSCS] vs. instrumental vs. vaginal) were noted. After delivery, the birth weight and APGAR scores (1 and 5 min) were recorded for all newborns. Macrosomia was defined as the birth weight ≥3.5 kg in our study.[12]
Figure 1: Detection rate of gestational diabetes mellitus by different criteria

Click here to view

The data collected were analyzed using the SPSS software version 17. Descriptive statistics was used for demographic variables and categorical data were compared using χ2 test. The level of agreement in GDM diagnosed between the criteria was assessed by pairwise comparisons using kappa statistics (k). All statistical analysis was carried out at 5% level of significance, and P < 0.05 was considered as significant.

   Results Top

In our study, 1231 cases with at least one risk factor for GDM were studied. Among them, 155 cases (12.6%) were diagnosed as GDM by IADPSG criteria and 153 cases (12.4%) by previous WHO criteria. Both criteria picked up 122 (9.9%) GDM subjects [Figure 1]. There was a good level of agreement between the two diagnostic criteria, and κ = 0.754 (P < 0.001). In WHO group, all patients except one were picked up by 2 h plasma glucose value alone [Table 1]. However, 70% of those diagnosed by IADPSG criteria alone had isolated elevated FPG. Most of the women (82–83%) diagnosed with GDM by either IADPSG or WHO criteria were managed with diet alone. Both the groups had a good control of blood glucose. Twenty-five subjects in the WHO group and 27 cases in the IADPSG group required metformin along with diet. Three patients on metformin had nausea and mild gastric intolerance which resolved with dose reduction. Five cases diagnosed as GDM by WHO criteria and 7 cases diagnosed by IADPSG required insulin. Two patients in WHO and 3 in IADPSG group opted for insulin from beginning. In addition, 2 patients in WHO and 3 in IADPSG group were initiated on insulin directly as their FPG in OGTT was >6.1 mmol/l. Rest one patient in each group was given added insulin following suboptimal glycemic control with metformin.
Table 1: Comparison between IADPSG and previous WHO criteria

Click here to view

The GDM subjects diagnosed by either IADPSG or WHO criteria were significantly older with greater weight and BMI compared to their non-GDM counterparts [Table 2]. Most of those diagnosed as GDM had a vaginal delivery. The GDM subjects diagnosed by IADPSG criteria had a higher rate of LSCS as compared to NGT group (15.5% vs. 9.2%, P = 0.01). In contrast, those diagnosed by WHO criteria had similar LSCS rate.
Table 2: Comparison between GDM and non-GDM group

Click here to view

The babies born to GDM mothers diagnosed by either criteria had increased birth weight and macrosomia rate as compared to non-GDM mothers [Table 2]. In total, 14.9% and 17.1% of those diagnosed as GDM by IADPSG and WHO, respectively, had babies with birth weight ≥3.5 kg (macrosomia) as compared to 5% among non-GDM mothers. Of 79 babies with birth weight ≥3.5 kg in this study, 27 (34%) babies were born to mothers identified as having GDM. All but one (26/27) macrosomic babies were identified by WHO criteria versus only 85% (23/27) by IADPSG criteria). There was a stillbirth in WHO group and one intrauterine death in IADPSG group in the study.

   Discussion Top

The detection rate of GDM by either IADPSG or previous WHO criteria was similar (12.4% vs. 12.6%) with around 75% of agreement in our study. The prevalence of GDM varied from 6.6% to 24.3% in various studies from South-East Asia.[13],[14],[15],[16] The pickup rate of GDM by both criteria has been different across various studies. It was higher by WHO criteria (24.3% vs. 20.4%) in a study involving 2772 pregnant women done at a referral maternity center in Vietnam.[13] However, IADPSG criteria detected more GDM cases in the studies by Gilder et al.[14] from Thailand (6.6% vs. 10.1%) and Dahanayaka et al.[15] from Srilanka (7.2% vs. 8.9%). These disparities in GDM burden can be explained by the varying ethnicity of study population, the type of screening (universal vs. risk-based) used and the setting (community vs. tertiary care hospital) in which the study was conducted. Universal screening picked up more GDM cases compared to a risk-based approach.[15],[17] The risk factor based approach missed up to one-third of GDM cases by IADPSG criteria in the study from Srilanka.[15]

The primary differences between these two GDM diagnostic criteria are lower FPG and 2 h in IADPSG and WHO criteria, respectively.[8],[9] This fact was reaffirmed in our study. All but one GDM mother were picked up by 2 h PG in WHO criteria in contrast to the majority of them identified by FPG in IADPSG criteria [Table 1]. Similar findings were also reported in other studies.[15],[18] Thirty-one GDM subjects were diagnosed by WHO criteria alone in contrast to 33 cases in IADPSG group alone in this study [Table 1]. In other words, 16.7% and 17.7% were missed by either criteria alone. This figure varies from 16.3% to 32.6% in the literature.[15],[18]

The GDM subjects in either group were older with higher weight/BMI compared to their non-GDM counterparts. These findings are uniform across various studies.[7],[13] A study from Vietnam found that age and BMI at antenatal booking were the strongest predictors of development of GDM.[13] Similarly, both age ≥25 years and BMI ≥25 kg/m 2 had a significant independent association with GDM in a study by Seshiah et al.[7] In a recent meta-analysis of twenty studies, the unadjusted odds ratios of developing GDM were 2.14 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.82–2.53), 3.56 (3.05–4.21), and 8.56 (5.07–16.04) among overweight, obese, and severely obese compared with normal-weight pregnant women, respectively.[19]

GDM women diagnosed by either criteria are at higher risk for both LSCS and large for gestational age (LGA), but macrosomia is associated with only GDM mothers diagnosed by WHO criteria in two meta-analyses.[20],[21] Additionally, these associations are more consistent in WHO group. The treatment of GDM reduces both macrosomia (relative risk [RR] = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34–0.65) and LGA birth (RR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.47–0.71) in the meta-analysis by Falavigna et al.[22] Compared to WHO criteria, IADPSG criteria reduced the incidence of LGA by 0.32% (0.09–0.63%) in addition.[23] However, there was no statistically significant reduction in the cesarean section with treatment for GDM in either group.[22] That means treatment of gestational diabetes may not able to prevent all adverse outcomes associated with GDM. Similar findings were found in our study too. GDM subjects diagnosed by either criteria had increased birth weight and macrosomic babies compared to non-GDM mothers. However, the prevalence of LSCS rate was more frequent only in IADPSG group.

The strength of our study was its large sample size with uniform protocol for screening and treatment of all GDM cases at a single antenatal care center. There are also few limitations in this study. As this was a hospital-based study in a semi-urban setting, the results may not be applicable to the general population. Second, all the parameters related to feto-maternal outcomes were not evaluated.

To conclude, the diagnostic pick-up rate of GDM was similar with both IADPSG and previous WHO criteria in our hospital-based study. The neonatal birth weight and macrosomia rate among GDM women diagnosed with either criteria were comparable. Being easy to perform and economical, a revised WHO criterion of a 2 h PG threshold level of ≥140 mg % may logistically serve as a one-step screening and diagnostic procedure for GDM.

Financial support and sponsorship


Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

   References Top

Report of the Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care 1997;20:1183-97.  Back to cited text no. 1
Pettitt DJ, Baird HR, Aleck KA, Bennett PH, Knowler WC. Excessive obesity in offspring of Pima Indian women with diabetes during pregnancy. N Engl J Med 1983;308:242-5.  Back to cited text no. 2
Kim C, Newton KM, Knopp RH. Gestational diabetes and the incidence of type 2 diabetes: A systematic review. Diabetes Care 2002;25:1862-8.  Back to cited text no. 3
HAPO Study Cooperative Research Group, Metzger BE, Lowe LP, Dyer AR, Trimble ER, Chaovarindr U, et al. Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1991-2002.  Back to cited text no. 4
Yogev Y, Metzger BE, Hod M. Establishing diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus: Impact of the hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcome study. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2009;14:94-100.  Back to cited text no. 5
Chu SY, Abe K, Hall LR, Kim SY, Njoroge T, Qin C. Gestational diabetes mellitus: All Asians are not alike. Prev Med 2009;49:265-8.  Back to cited text no. 6
Seshiah V, Balaji V, Balaji MS, Paneerselvam A, Kapur A. Pregnancy and diabetes scenario around the world: India. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009;104:S35-8.  Back to cited text no. 7
Alberti KG, Zimmet PZ. Definition, diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus and its complications. Part 1: Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus provisional report of a WHO consultation. Diabet Med 1998;15:539-53.  Back to cited text no. 8
American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes--2011. Diabetes Care 2011;34:S11-61.  Back to cited text no. 9
International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups Consensus Panel, Metzger BE, Gabbe SG, Persson B, Buchanan TA, Catalano PA, et al. International association of diabetes and pregnancy study groups recommendations on the diagnosis and classification of hyperglycemia in pregnancy. Diabetes Care 2010;33:676-82.  Back to cited text no. 10
Blumer I, Hadar E, Hadden DR, Jovanovic L, Mestman JH, Murad MH, et al. Diabetes and pregnancy: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2013;98:4227-49.  Back to cited text no. 11
Kandraju H, Agrawal S, Geetha K, Sujatha L, Subramanian S, Murki S. Gestational age-specific centile charts for anthropometry at birth for South Indian infants. Indian Pediatr 2012;49:199-202.  Back to cited text no. 12
Tran TS, Hirst JE, Do MA, Morris JM, Jeffery HE. Early prediction of gestational diabetes mellitus in Vietnam: Clinical impact of currently recommended diagnostic criteria. Diabetes Care 2013;36:618-24.  Back to cited text no. 13
Gilder ME, Zin TW, Wai NS, Ner M, Say PS, Htoo M, et al. Gestational diabetes mellitus prevalence in Maela refugee camp on the Thai-Myanmar border: A clinical report. Glob Health Action 2014;7:23887.  Back to cited text no. 14
Dahanayaka NJ, Agampodi SB, Ranasinghe OR, Jayaweera PM, Wickramasinghe WA, Adhikari AN, et al. Inadequacy of the risk factor based approach to detect gestational diabetes mellitus. Ceylon Med J 2012;57:5-9.  Back to cited text no. 15
Rajput M, Bairwa M, Rajput R. Prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus in rural Haryana: A community-based study. Indian J Endocrinol Metab 2014;18:350-4.  Back to cited text no. 16
Griffin ME, Coffey M, Johnson H, Scanlon P, Foley M, Stronge J, et al. Universal vs. risk factor-based screening for gestational diabetes mellitus: Detection rates, gestation at diagnosis and outcome. Diabet Med 2000;17:26-32.  Back to cited text no. 17
Nallaperumal S, Bhavadharini B, Mahalakshmi MM, Maheswari K, Jalaja R, Moses A, et al. Comparison of the World Health Organization and the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups criteria in diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus in South Indians. Indian J Endocrinol Metab 2013;17:906-9.  Back to cited text no. 18
Chu SY, Callaghan WM, Kim SY, Schmid CH, Lau J, England LJ, et al. Maternal obesity and risk of gestational diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 2007;30:2070-6.  Back to cited text no. 19
Wendland EM, Torloni MR, Falavigna M, Trujillo J, Dode MA, Campos MA, et al. Gestational diabetes and pregnancy outcomes – A systematic review of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) diagnostic criteria. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2012;12:23.  Back to cited text no. 20
Hartling L, Dryden DM, Guthrie A, Muise M, Vandermeer B, Donovan L. Diagnostic thresholds for gestational diabetes and their impact on pregnancy outcomes: A systematic review. Diabet Med 2014;31:319-31.  Back to cited text no. 21
Falavigna M, Schmidt MI, Trujillo J, Alves LF, Wendland ER, Torloni MR, et al. Effectiveness of gestational diabetes treatment: A systematic review with quality of evidence assessment. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2012;98:396-405.  Back to cited text no. 22
Falavigna M, Prestes I, Schmidt MI, Duncan BB, Colagiuri S, Roglic G. Impact of gestational diabetes mellitus screening strategies on perinatal outcomes: A simulation study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2013;99:358-65.  Back to cited text no. 23


  [Figure 1]

  [Table 1], [Table 2]

This article has been cited by
1 Impact of adopting the 2013 World Health Organization criteria for diagnosis of gestational diabetes in a multi-ethnic Asian cohort: a prospective study
Claudia Chi,See Ling Loy,Shiao-Yng Chan,Cherie Choong,Shirong Cai,Shu E. Soh,Kok Hian Tan,Fabian Yap,Peter D. Gluckman,Keith M. Godfrey,Lynette Pei-Chi Shek,Jerry Kok Yen Chan,Michael S. Kramer,Yap-Seng Chong
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2018; 18(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Screening and diagnosis of gestational diabetes in India: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Katherine T. Li,Shilpa Naik,Mallika Alexander,Jyoti S. Mathad
Acta Diabetologica. 2018;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy of Non-fasting DIPSI and HbA1c with Fasting WHO Criteria for Diagnosis of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus
Pikee Saxena,Puja Verma,Binita Goswami
The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
4 Clinical characteristics of women with gestational diabetes - comparison of two cohorts enrolled 20 years apart in southern Brazil
Angela Jacob Reichelt,Letícia Schwerz Weinert,Livia Silveira Mastella,Vanessa Gnielka,Maria Amélia Campos,Vânia Naomi Hirakata,Maria Lúcia Rocha Oppermann,Sandra Pinho Silveiro,Maria Inês Schmidt
Sao Paulo Medical Journal. 2017; 135(4): 376
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
5 Neonatal hyperglycemia induces cell death in the rat brain
Andrea Pereira Rosa,Caroline Paula Mescka,Felipe Maciel Catarino,Alexandre Luz de Castro,Rayane Brinck Teixeira,Cristina Campos,Guilherme Baldo,Débora Dalmas Graf,Angela de Mattos-Dutra,Carlos Severo Dutra-Filho,Alex Sander da Rosa Araujo
Metabolic Brain Disease. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]


    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

   Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Article Figures Article Tables
  In this article

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded424    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 5    

Recommend this journal