Table 3—

Studies of GDM prevalence and calculated PAR published from 1992 to 2002

AuthorGDM criteriaStudy typeCountrySubjects (n)GDM (%)PAR95% CI
Jang et al. (22)NDDGProspective cohortKorea3,5812.20.100.06–0.15
Jimenez-Moleon et al. (23)NDDGRetrospective cohortSpain2,5742.50.110.07–0.16
Xiong et al. (24)NDDGRetrospective cohortCanada111,5632.50.110.07–0.16
Danilenko-Dixon et al. (25)NDDGRetrospective cohortU.S.18,5043.00.130.09–0.19
Ferrara et al. (26)NDDGRetrospective cohortU.S.28,3303.20.140.09–0.20
Corrado et al. (27)NDDGProspective cohortItaly1,0003.40.150.10–0.21
Bartha et al. (28)NDDGProspective cohortSpain3,9865.90.230.15–0.32
Corrado et al. (27)Carpenter and CoustanProspective cohortItaly1,0004.60.190.12–0.26
Ferrara et al. (26)Carpenter and CoustanRetrospective cohortU.S.28,3304.80.190.13–0.27
Yalcin and Zordu (29)Carpenter and CoustanProspective cohortTurkey1,0006.60.250.17–0.34
Schmidt et al. (30)ADA 2000 75-g GTT Prospective cohortBrazil4,9772.40.110.07–0.16
Yang et al. (31)WHOProspective cohortChina9,4712.30.100.07–0.15
Schmidt et al. (30)WHOProspective cohortBrazil4,9777.20.260.18–0.36
Lee et al. (16)WHORetrospective cohortHong Kong11,3007.40.270.19–0.37
Davey and Hamblin (32)ADIPSRetrospective cohortAustralia6,0325.20.210.14–0.29
Martin et al. (33)ADIPSProspective cohortAustralia1,3715.50.220.15–0.30
Moses et al. (34)ADIPSRetrospective cohortAustralia1,8297.20.260.18–0.36
Beischer et al.* (15)MercyRetrospective cohortAustralia16,8208.80.310.21–0.41
  • References 26, 27, and 30 examined prevalence of GDM by two different sets of diagnostic criteria and hence are listed twice.

  • *

    * Data for the 1991–1994 cohort in Beischer’s study. ADA, American Diabetes Association; GTT, glucose tolerance test; NDDG, National Diabetes Data Group.