Table 1—

DRAs in women with GDM

AuthornICA prevalence (%)IAA prevalence (%)GADA prevalence (%)I-A2A prevalence (%)
Steel et al. (17)5010
Ginsberg-Fellner et al. (20)*8835
Fallucca et al. (18)395
Freinkel et al. (1)1607.5
Stowers et al. (19)7212.5
Catalano et al. (21)1871.6
Bell et al. (22)1812.8
Stangerberg et al. (23)551.8
Mauricio et al. (24)30712.4
Ziegler et al. (25)5511
Damm et al. (26)1392.9§0§
Tuomilehto et al. (50)1125.0
Beischer et al. (51)7341.8
Mauricio et al. (3)2031
Petersen et al. (52)1392.2§
Lapolla et al. (27)682.91.5
Dozio et al. (28)14510§3.0§0§0§
Fuchtenbusch et al. (29)4378.59.56.2
Fallucca et al. (53)833.6§
Whittingham et al. (30)98341
Panczel et al. (31)6814.7
Kinalski et al. (32)1565.17.03.2
Mitchell et al. (54)1006
Bartha et al. (33)1020.9810.8
Kousta et al. (55)3214.0
Weng et al. (56)664.5§
Lapolla et al. (34)702.81.40
Albareda et al. (35)535141.50.2
Bo et al. (36)1236.54.1
Järvelä et al. (37)43512.55.94.71.0§
• Adapted from Lauenborg et al. (84). For groups with several articles on the subject, the first article reporting the prevalence of each autoantibody is included.

• *

* The method was later shown to produce false-positive results.

• P < 0.05 vs. the control population.

• Measurements were performed at different times after delivery;

• §

§ NS vs. the control population. ‖Women had both GDM and a positive family history of diabetes.