Diagnosing gestational diabetes: can expert opinions replace scientific evidence?

被引:0
|
作者
H. Long
机构
[1] Laval Health and Social Services Center,Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine
[2] Laval Regional Diabetes Center,Endocrinology and Metabolism
[3] Montreal’s University Hospital Center (CHUM),undefined
来源
Diabetologia | 2011年 / 54卷
关键词
Diagnostic controversy; Diagnostic criteria; Evidence-based medicine; Experts consensus; Gestational diabetes; Macrosomia; Medicalisation; Observational studies; Pregnancy; Preventive medicine;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Preventive medical interventions should be based on the highest level of scientific evidence. Actual criteria for diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are neither uniform nor based on pregnancy outcomes. An expert panel from the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups recently proposed that all pregnant women undergo a one-step 75 g OGTT, and defined new lower cut-off points to diagnose GDM (Metzger BE et al. Diabetes Care 33: 676–682). These criteria will double the prevalence of GDM, as 18% of all pregnant women will be labelled as abnormal. A recent article in Diabetologia (Ryan EA 54:480–486) claimed that maternal glucose is a weak predictor of big babies, that a single OGTT is poorly reproducible, and that expected benefits from intervention would be, at best, modest. This Commentary discusses other objections and argues that guidelines on any new GDM diagnostic strategy should be based on the results of randomised controlled trials rather than on disputable expert opinions.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Diagnosing unexplained fever: can quick diagnosis units replace inpatient hospitalization?
    Brito-Zeron, Pilar
    Nicolas-Ocejo, David
    Jordan, Anna
    Retamozo, Soledad
    Lopez-Soto, Alfonso
    Bosch, Xavier
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATION, 2014, 44 (08) : 707 - 718
  • [42] Letter to the editor in response to: Evidence in support of the international association of diabetes in pregnancy study groups' criteria for diagnosing gestational diabetes worldwide in 2019
    O'Malley, Eimer G.
    Reynolds, Ciara M. E.
    Turner, Michael J.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2019, 220 (06) : 610 - 610
  • [43] Scientific Disciplines and the Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Courts
    O'Brien, Timothy L.
    Hawkins, Stephen L.
    Loesch, Adam
    SOCIUS, 2022, 8
  • [44] Scientific evidence applied to medical expert opinion
    Hureau, Jacques
    E-MEMOIRES DE L ACADEMIE NATIONALE DE CHIRURGIE, 2008, 7 (02): : 76 - 78
  • [45] Expert Scientific Evidence in Court: The Legal Considerations
    Auchie, Derek P.
    CRIMINAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SOIL FORENSICS, 2009, : 13 - 31
  • [46] SCIENTIFIC EXPERT AND PRESENTATION OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE IN COURT
    LOUISELL, D
    TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY, 1969, 12 (02): : 506 - &
  • [47] The interest of the scientific community in expert opinions from journal peer review procedures
    Lutz Bornmann
    Robin Haunschild
    Scientometrics, 2015, 102 : 2187 - 2188
  • [48] The interest of the scientific community in expert opinions from journal peer review procedures
    Bornmann, Lutz
    Haunschild, Robin
    SCIENTOMETRICS, 2015, 102 (03) : 2187 - 2188
  • [49] Where is the evidence to screen for gestational diabetes?
    Masson, EA
    Lindow, SW
    BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2006, 113 (05) : 615 - U13
  • [50] Can postpartum HbA1C replace oral glucose tolerance test among gestational diabetes mellitus patients?
    Cohen, Nadav
    Abu Nasra, Lelia
    Kedar, Reuven
    Lavie, Ofer
    Zilberlicht, Ariel
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2024, 230 (01) : S231 - S232