Table 2—

Controlled studies of women with and without GDM who were followed up and tested for the development of diabetes

Proportion of subjects with diabetes at follow-up
Study weight (%)RR for type 2 diabetes95% CIYears follow-upGDM criterionDiabetes criterionStudy population
GDM subjectsControl subjects
Study
 Lee et al. (16)18/193 (9.3%)3/58 (5.2%)13.11.80.55–5.96WHOWHO*Hong Kong
 Hanson et al. (17)8/145 (5.5%)0/23 (0%)2.42.80.17–46.96–7Gillmer et al.WHOSweden
 Aberg et al. (18)21/229 (9.2%)1/61 (1.6%)4.55.60.77–40.81EASDWHOSweden
 Benjamin et al. (19)14/47 (30%)3/47 (6%)8.54.71.4–15.23–9O’Sullivan and MahanWHOZuni Indian, U.S.
 O’Sullivan et al. (20)224/615 (36.4%)18/328 (5.5%)66.96.64.2–10.522–28O’Sullivan and MahanWHOU.S.
 Damm et al. (9)42/241 (17.4%)0/57 (0%)2.320.41.3–3262–11Damm et al.WHODenmark
Overall332/1,61525/615100.06.04.0–8.7
  • χ2 homogeneity = 5.33, df = 5, P = 0.4.

  • *

    * Modified WHO criteria: fasting plasma glucose ≥144 or 2-h plasma glucose ≥200 mg/dl on a 75-g glucose tolerance test.

  • WHO criteria (1980) for the diagnosis of diabetes: fasting plasma glucose ≥140 or 2-h plasma glucose ≥200 mg/dl on a 75-g glucose tolerance test (13).

  • One control subject known to have developed diabetes who declined to participate in the follow-up study has been included in our calculations. EASD, European Association for the Study of Diabetes.