Diabetes Care
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Published online April 19, 2007
Diabetes Care 30:1920-1925, 2007
DOI: 10.2337/dc07-0278
© 2007 by the American Diabetes Association
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Online-Only Appendix
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
dc07-0278v1
30/7/1920    most recent
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Guerin, A.
Right arrow Articles by Ray, J. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Guerin, A.
Right arrow Articles by Ray, J. G.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Review Article
Reviews/Commentaries/ADA Statements

Use of Maternal GHb Concentration to Estimate the Risk of Congenital Anomalies in the Offspring of Women with Prepregnancy Diabetes

Andrea Guerin, BSC1, Rosane Nisenbaum, PHD2 and Joel G. Ray, MD, MSC, FRCPC3

1 Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
2 Center for Research on Inner City Health, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
3 Departments of Medicine, Obstetrics and Gynecology and Health Policy Management and Evaluation, and the Divisions of General Internal Medicine and Endocrinology and Metabolism, St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Joel G. Ray, Department of Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond St., Toronto, Ontario, M5B 1W8, Canada. E-mail: rayj{at}smh.toronto.on.ca

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE— We sought to determine the absolute risk of having a congenital anomaly in relation to periconceptional GHb concentration among women with prepregnancy diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS— Two reviewers independently retrieved all cohort studies through a systematic literature search between January 1985 and May 2006. For each study, the absolute risk of having a pregnancy affected by a major or minor structural anomaly (diagnosed either antenatally or up to 28 days after conception) was calculated according to the number of SDs of GHb above the mean for nondiabetic, nonpregnant control subjects. A multilevel logistic-normal model was used to pool the data, which were expressed in tabular and graphic formats.

RESULTS— In seven cohort studies, there were 117 anomalies among 1,977 pregnancies. At a periconceptional GHb concentration 0 SD above normal, the absolute risk of a pregnancy affected by a congenital anomaly was ~2% (95% CI 0.0–4.4). At 2 SD above normal, the risk was 3% (0.4–6.1), and at 8 SD it was ~10% (2.3–17.8). For each 1-SD unit increase in GHb, the associated risk of a congenital malformation increased by an odds ratio of 1.2 (95% CI 1.1–1.4). The risk in relation to A1C followed the same pattern.

CONCLUSIONS— Using data from a limited number of published studies, a practical aid was developed to optimize use of the GHb and A1C concentrations for estimating the absolute risk of a congenital anomaly in the offspring of women with prepregnancy diabetes.

The offspring of women with prepregnancy diabetes are at increased risk of having a structural congenital anomaly (1–3). It is hypothesized that hyperglycemia exerts a teratogenic effect on the developing fetus (4,5). There is a positive association between poor glycemic control in the periconcep-tion period and the risk of such anomalies (1,6–10).

Those who counsel women with prepregnancy diabetes currently lack a valid, standardized method to estimate of the risk of a fetal anomaly in relation to the periconceptional GHb concentration, a measure of glycemic control (10). We undertook a meta-analysis to determine the absolute risk of congenital anomalies in relation to periconceptional GHb.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Literature search
Two investigators independently searched PubMed and Embase databases from January 1985 to May 2006. The following search expression was used: "(diabetes OR diabetes mellitus) AND (anomaly OR congenital anomaly OR malformation OR congenital malformation OR organ system OR birth defect) AND (periconception OR periconceptional OR preconception OR preconceptional OR perinatal OR first trimester) AND (glycosylated hemoglobin OR HbA1c)". All searches were limited to English language and human studies. The bibliographic references of all articles were searched for additional papers.

The abstract of each article was read and determined for eligibility according to the following criteria: 1) a cohort study comprising at least 20 women with prepregnancy diabetes; 2) GHb levels were measured in the periconception period, defined as the period from 17 weeks before conception up to the completion of the first trimester of pregnancy (i.e., up to 16 weeks’ gestation); 3) the associated number of congenital malformations was provided at each category of GHb concentration; and 4) reference values for the GHb (i.e., assay mean and SD) were provided for a nondiabetic control population. Full-text articles deemed eligible were reviewed by A.G. and J.G.R. to ensure that they met the inclusion criteria.

Data abstraction
A.G. and J.G.R. abstracted data into standardized tables. Information about the study and participant characteristics, as well as the GHb assay used, was included in Table 1. The methods used to detect congenital anomalies were incorporated into Table 2. We considered any major or minor structural anomaly diagnosed either antenatally or up to 28 days after conception. We only counted those pregnancies (in the numerator and denominator) that did not result in spontaneous abortion, as determined by the authors of each study. Anomalies were further broken down according to major anatomical systems (Table 3).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1— Study and participant characteristics and methods used to measure GHb

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2— Methods used to detect for congenital anomalies in studies of women with prepregnancy diabetes

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3— Type of congenital anomalies detected among the offspring of women with prepregnancy diabetes*

 
As presented in Table 4, we standardized the reported GHb values across studies by converting values into units of SD from the nondiabetic, nonpregnant control mean value provided in each study, as follows: GHb SD = (GHb % value – mean % GHb control assay value)/SD GHb control assay.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 4— Absolute risk of a major or minor congenital anomaly categorized according to periconceptional GHb SD

 
For example, if a reported GHb % value was 8%, the nondiabetic mean % control value for the assay was 6%, and the SD control value was 1%, then GHb SD = 2. The mid-point GHb was used when GHb values were reported as an interval; if a lower or upper limit for GHb was provided, then that value was used.

Statistical analysis
The association between the GHb SD and the proportion (i.e., absolute risk) of major or minor anomalies was meta-analyzed using a multilevel model, a modification of our previous method (11). Specifically, we fitted the logistic-normal model (12), where the number of anomalies for each GHb SD category within each study follows a binomial distribution based on the number of births and proportion of anomalies (online appendix 1 [available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc07-0278]). A crude odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI was estimated according to each 1-unit increase in GHb SD.

Because A1C is now the most commonly used measure of GHb, we used the study data to determine the A1C values corresponding to each GHb SD. Specifically, a nonweighted mean ± SD population reference value was averaged from those studies that measured A1C. The previous equation was then rewritten to derive a series of A1C values, as follows: A1C = (GHb SD) x (SD GHb control assay) + mean % GHb control assay value.

Using the GHb SD categories derived from each study, the estimated corresponding A1C values were presented accordingly, and the absolute risk of major or minor, in association with A1C, was graphically plotted.

PROC NLMIXED in SAS (version 9.1.3) was used for all analyses. The model and SAS program codes are provided in online appendix 1.

RESULTS—

A total of 45 citations were initially found in PubMed and 33 in Embase. Of the 75 full-text articles that were further examined, 7 prospective cohort studies were included in the final analysis (6–9,13–16) (Table 1). All studies originated from U.S., except for one, which was from Finland (14). Most study participants had type 1 diabetes, but one included 20 participants with type 2 diabetes (6), together representing 1,977 pregnancies (Table 1). The exact number of women who had more than one pregnancy was not known. In one study, participants were divided according to receipt of preconception care (6); since the postconception group included pregnancies up to 20 weeks’ gestation, only preconception participants were included herein.

Table 2 describes the various screening methods used to detect congenital anomalies in the neonates. In all studies, infants were examined at birth, with the exception of one study (15). Other methods of identifying anomalies, such as anatomical ultrasonography or neonatal autopsy, were not performed. No study described the use of maternal serum screening or amniocentesis as screening methods but was mostly done in the era before these modalities were commonly available.

GHb values
A variety of methods were used to measure GHb (Table 1). Four studies measured A1C (6,8,9,14,15), and the others HbA1, HbA 1a+b+c, or "glycosylated hemoglobin." The corresponding GHb SD values are listed in Table 4.

Congenital anomalies
There were 117 structural anomalies (5.9%) reported among 1,977 pregnancies. The majority involved the cardiac (36.8%), central nervous (20.8%), and urogenital systems (13.6%) (Table 3).

The number of congenital anomalies varied by study and according to GHb SD. The overall absolute risk of malformations ranged from 1.2% (95% CI 0.03–6.5) (15) up to 16.1% (8.4–23.8) (13). About 850 (43%) of all pregnancies and 43 (37%) of all anomalies arose in women whose GHb SD was ≤4 SD above normal (Table 4).

Association between GHb SD and congenital anomalies
The predicted risk and 95% CI of a major or minor congenital anomaly is presented according to the number of GHb SD above normal (Fig. 1A and online appendix 2). Thus, at a periconceptional GHb concentration 0 SD above normal (i.e., equivalent to a woman without diabetes), the absolute risk of a pregnancy affected by a congenital anomaly was ~2% (95% CI 0.0–4.4), which is approximately the same as the general population (10). However, at 2 SD above normal, the absolute risk was 3% (0.4–6.1), while at 8 SD above normal it was ~10% (2.3–17.8) (Fig. 1A). For each 1-unit increase in the GHb SD, the associated risk of any congenital malformation increased by an OR of 1.2 (95% CI 1.1–1.4).


Figure 1
View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 1— A: Risk of a major or minor congenital anomaly according to the number of SDs of GHb above normal, measured periconceptionally. Data are presented as an absolute risk (solid line and blue values) ± lower and upper 95% CIs (dashed lines). B: Risk of a major or minor anomaly according to periconceptional A1C. *Data are presented as an absolute risk (solid line and blue values) ± 95% CIs (dashed lines).

 
Association between A1C and congenital anomalies
A mean ± SD population reference value of 5.5 ± 0.7% was averaged from the four studies that measured A1C (6,8,9,14,15). Thus, solving for the second above-listed equation: A1C = (GHb SD) x (0.7%) + 5.5%.

For each GHb SD, the corresponding A1C concentration and estimated absolute risk of a congenital anomaly is presented in Fig. 1B and online appendix 2.

CONCLUSIONS—

Using data from a limited number of published cohort studies, we developed a practical tool to assist clinicians in estimating the absolute risk of a major or minor congenital anomaly in the offspring of women with prepregnancy diabetes (Fig. 1A and B).

Limitations and strengths
We used strict criteria to select studies for our review, and, accordingly, we may have overlooked those studies whose format did not allow us to estimate the GHb SD. Our inclusion of studies spanning nearly two decades would certainly have represented various strategies and degrees of glycemic control, as well as overall diabetes care, among participants. Study enrollees may have been motivated to optimize their glycemic control compared with nonparticipants. Furthermore, relevant factors, such as maternal age, receipt of counseling before pregnancy, periconceptional folic acid use, ethnicity, and diabetes-related comorbidities, were not adjusted for in our analysis. The inclusion of only 1,977 pregnancies from seven original studies limited our ability to estimate the absolute risk of congenital anomalies with confidence, especially at higher GHb SD, as seen in Fig. 1A and B.

In this review, GHb was differentially measured across a fairly broad periconceptional period; although most were assessed in the first trimester of pregnancy, some were done before conception. The method used to screen for congenital anomalies was also not uniform across studies. Since most anomalies were detected at birth, pregnancies resulting in early spontaneous or therapeutic abortion would have been missed, as would those malformations identified after the neonatal period. A major congenital anomaly—that leading to either death or serious handicap necessitating surgical correction or medical therapy (10)—would be more easily detected in utero than a minor birth defect. We might be criticized for combining major and minor anomalies together, but some studies included herein did not distinguish between them. There exists no hard and fast rule to define the impact of one type of anomaly over another, in terms of the social and psychological consequences for parents and child. Moreover, in the presence of two or three minor anomalies, 11 and 90% of infants have an associated major malformation, respectively, which is often occult in nature (17).

The use of GHb as a measure of glycemic control is not without limitations. For example, it has been suggested that GHb better represents fasting glucose levels than postmeal measures (18). Postprandial hyperglycemia is common among women with type 2 diabetes, yet, few affected participants were included herein. The assays for measuring GHb have not been universally standardized (19,20), which may pose a limitation with regard to between-study variability and the applicability of these data to other clinical centers. However, our use of the GHb SD attempted to minimize such variability. Second, the mean ± SD population A1C reference value of 5.5 ± 0.7% that we derived is similar to that described in working reports of A1C standardization (19–21), reflecting the nonpregnant assay control value used by most institutions. Accordingly, the data generated herein may be applicable to centers that can define the performance of their own GHb assay in relation to GHb SD (Fig. 1A) or, more specifically, A1C (Fig. 1B).

Other research
Some high-quality studies did not meet the selection criteria and were not included herein. For example, Rosenn et al. (22) assessed GHb and the risk of spontaneous abortion and congenital anomalies among 215 individuals with type 1 diabetes. At a GHb concentration >12% (~7 SD above the mean), they observed an increased risk of both adverse outcomes. Mironiuk et al. (23) found that elevated maternal A1C and the presence of diabetic angiopathy were associated with a seven times higher risk of fetal malformations compared with women with well-controlled type 1 diabetes.

While authors have reported a single GHb threshold above which the risk of fetal anomalies is increased (1,24), this was done using an arbitrary cut point. Rather, the data presented herein suggest that this risk continuously rises in a curvilinear fashion with increasing GHb and that no pregnancy can be deemed "at risk" or "risk free." Even the presence of mild periconceptional hyperglycemia is not without some degree of risk (14). Moreover, within a large Danish cohort of women with type 1 diabetes, first trimester A1C was strongly correlated with adverse perinatal outcomes, extending beyond structural anomalies to include early and late fetal loss and neonatal death (25). Thus, GHb may serve as a useful indicator of the risk of not only structural malformations but also other adverse perinatal outcomes.

Implications
Several factors are clearly important in determining the risk of a congenital anomaly, such as maternal age, weight, and use of periconceptional folic acid supplements (10). This review provides the best available data for expressing that risk, as it related to maternal glycemic control. Together, they can be used to optimize prepregnancy and early pregnancy counseling in women with diabetes.

Optimizing the GHb (i.e., A1C) concentration before conception or the period of organogenesis remains a major goal for women with prepregnancy diabetes (10,26). In a recent meta-analysis, preconception care (with improved glycemic control) was associated with a significantly lower risk of congenital anomalies among women with diabetes (10). This is reinforced by the current observation that an elevated GHb in the periconceptional period heightens the risk of structural anomalies, many of which involve the cardiac and central nervous systems. At the same time, nearly half of the study participants included herein had a GHb ≤4 SD of normal, where the risk curve is rather flat (Fig. 1A). This suggests that there may be a small benefit (e.g., a 1–2% absolute risk reduction) on lowering the GHb concentration below this threshold.

Future research
Ongoing studies are needed to determine the optimal time at which GHb should be measured for the estimation of anomaly risk, as well as the additional utility of routine capillary glucose testing. Given the increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes in pregnancy (27), more data are needed about the use of GHb to estimate anomaly risk in this population, especially since maternal obesity may be an independent risk factor for fetal malformations (28).

There is an ongoing international effort to standardize the measurement of A1C (19,20). This should facilitate the ease and accuracy of estimating anomaly risk in women with prepregnancy diabetes using the current and future data.

In conclusion, those who counsel women with prepregnancy diabetes must consider the effects of pregnancy on maternal well being, as well as the impact of diabetes, including glycemic control, on both mother and fetus (26). Counseling that is evidence based and informed, considering preexisting measures of maternal health and glycemic control, is essential. We have developed a tool that uses periconceptional GHb SD (Fig. 1A) and A1C (Fig. 1B) to estimate the risk of a structural congenital anomaly in the offspring of women with prepregnancy diabetes.

Acknowledgments

This analysis was completed with financial support from the Centre for Research on Inner City Health, the Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, and the Summer Student Research Programme, St. Michael's Hospital.

J.G.R. is supported by a Canadian Institutes for Health Research New Investigator Award.

The sponsors of this review had no involvement in or control over the design and conduct of the study; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; the preparation of the data; or the preparation, review, and approval of the manuscript.

Footnotes

Published ahead of print at http://care.diabetesjournals.org on 19 March 2007. DOI: 10.2337/dc07-0278.

Additional information for this article can be found in an online appendix at http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc07-0278.

A table elsewhere in this issue shows conventional and Système International (SI) units and conversion factors for many substances.

Received for publication February 9, 2007. Accepted for publication March 22, 2007.

References

  1. Ylinen K, Aula P, Stenman UH, Kesaniemi-Kuokkanen T, Teramo K: Risk of minor and major fetal malformations in diabetics with high hemoglobin A1C values in early pregnancy. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 289:345–346, 1984[Medline]
  2. Casson IF, Clarke CA, Howard CV, McKendrick O, Pennycook S, Pharoah PO, Platt MJ, Stanisstreet M, van Velszen D, Walkinshaw S: Outcomes of pregnancy in insulin dependent diabetic women: results of a five year population cohort study. BMJ 315:275–278, 1997[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Macintosh MC, Fleming KM, Bailey JA, Doyle P, Modder J, Acolet D, Golightly S, Miller A: Perinatal mortality and congenital anomalies in babies of women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland: population based study. BMJ 333:177, 2006[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Sadler TW, Hunter ES 3rd, Balkan W, Horton WE Jr: Effects of maternal diabetes on embryogenesis. Am J Obstet Perinaol 5:319–326, 1988
  5. Eriksson UJ, Borg LA, Forsberg H, Styrud J: Diabetic embryopathy: studies with animal and in vitro models. Diabetes 40(Suppl. 2):94–98, 1991
  6. Key TC, Giuffrida R, Moore TR: Predictive value of early pregnancy glycohemoglobin in the insulin-treated diabetic patient. Am J Obstet Gynecol 156:1096–1100, 1987[Medline]
  7. Miodovnik M, Mimouni F, Dignan PS, Berk MA, Ballard JL, Siddiqi TA, Khoury J, Tsang RC: Major malformations in infants of IDDM women: vasculopathy and early first trimester poor glycemic control. Diabetes Care 11:713–718, 1988[Abstract]
  8. Greene MF, Hare JW, Cloherty JP, Benacerraf BR, Soeldner JS: First-trimester hemoglobin A1 and risk for major malformation and spontaneous abortion in diabetic pregnancy. Teratology 39:225–231, 1989[Medline]
  9. Greene MF: Spontaneous abortions and major malformations in women with diabetes mellitus. Semin Repro Endo 17:127–136, 1999
  10. Ray JG, O'Brien TE, Chan WS: Preconception care and the risk of congenital anomalies in the offspring of women with diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis. QJM 94:435–444, 2001[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. O'Brien TE, Ray JG, Chan WS: Maternal body mass index and the risk of preeclampsia: a systematic overview. Epidemiology 14:368–374, 2003[Medline]
  12. Hox J: Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002
  13. Lucas MJ, Leveno KJ, Williams ML, Raskin P, Whalley PJ: Early pregnancy glycosylated hemoglobin, severity of diabetes, and fetal malformations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 161:426–431, 1989[Medline]
  14. Suhonen L, Hiilesmaa V, Teramo K: Glycaemic control during early pregnancy and fetal malformations in women with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Diabetologia 43:79–82, 2000[Medline]
  15. Kitzmiller JL, Gavin LA, Gin GD, Jovanovic-Peterson L, Main EK, Zigrang WD: Preconception care of diabetes: glycemic control prevents congenital anomalies. JAMA 265:731–736, 1991[Abstract]
  16. Mills JL, Knopp RH, Simpson JL, Jovanovic-Peterson L, Metzger BE, Holmes LB, Aarons JH, Brown Z, Reed GF, Bieber FR, et al.: Lack of relation of increased malformation rates in infants of diabetic mothers to glycemic control during organogenesis. N Engl J Med 318:671–676, 1998
  17. Hoyme HE: Minor anomalies: diagnostic clues to aberrant human morphogenesis. Genetica 89:307–315, 1993
  18. Hillman N, Herranz L, Grande C, Vaquero PM, Pallardo LF: What is the relative contribution of blood glucose levels at different time points of the day to HbA1c in type 1 diabetes? Diabet Med 21:468–470, 2004[Medline]
  19. Sachs DB: Global harmonization of hemoglobin A1c. Clin Chem 51:681–683, 2000
  20. Manley S, John WG, Marshall S: Introduction of IFCC reference method for calibration of HbA1C: implications for clinical care. Diabet Med 21:673–676, 2004[Medline]
  21. NGSP Clinical Advisory Committee: Harmonizing glycated hemoglobin testing: a better A1c test means better diabetes care [article online], 2006. Available from http://www.ngsp.org/prog/IFCCstd.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2007
  22. Rosenn B, Miodovnik M, Combs A, Khoury J, Siddiqi TA: Glycemic thresholds for spontaneous abortion and congenital malformations in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Obstet Gynecol 84:515–520, 1994[Abstract]
  23. Mironiuk M, Kietlinska Z, Jezierska-Kaspryk K, Piekosz-Orzechowska B: A class of diabetes in the mother, glycemic control in early pregnancy and occurance of congenital malformations in newborn infants. Clin Exp Obstet and Gynecol 24:193–197, 1997
  24. Hanson U, Persson B, Thunell S: Relationship between hemoglobin A1c in early type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetic pregnancy and the occurance of spontaneous abortion and fetal malformation in Sweden. Diabetologia 33:100–104, 1990[Medline]
  25. Nielsen GL, Moller M, Sorensen HT: HbA1c in early diabetic pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes: a Danish population-based cohort study of 573 pregnancies in women with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 29:2612–2616, 2006[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. McLeod L, Ray JG: Prevention and detection of diabetic embryopathy. Commun Genet 5:33–39, 2002
  27. Feig DS, Palda VA: Type 2 diabetes in pregnancy: a growing concern. Lancet 359:1690–1692, 2002[Medline]
  28. Watkins ML, Rasmussen SA, Honein MA, Botto LD, Moore CA: Maternal obesity and risk for birth defects. Pediatrics 111:1152–1158, 2003[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Schizophr BullHome page
M. V. Seeman
Secondary Effects of Antipsychotics: Women at Greater Risk Than Men
Schizophr Bull, April 9, 2008; (2008) sbn023v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Online-Only Appendix
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
dc07-0278v1
30/7/1920    most recent
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Guerin, A.
Right arrow Articles by Ray, J. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Guerin, A.
Right arrow Articles by Ray, J. G.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Diabetes Diabetes Care Clinical Diabetes Diabetes Spectrum