Table 1—

Studies of trends in the prevalence of GDM

n; race/ethnicityStudy period (years)Change in GDM prevalenceRelative increase in GDM prevalenceCriteria for GDM definitionAge-adjusted
Northern California (U.S.) (11)267,051; 45% non-Hispanic white1991–20003.7% to 6.6%68%2000 ADAYes
5.1% to 6.9%35%2000 ADA or diagnosis
South Australia (12)230,011; 96% non-Aboriginal1988–19991.8% to 3.1% in non-Aboriginal 5.2% to 5.8% in Aboriginal72% 12%ADIPS and WHOYes
Colorado (U.S.) (13)36,403; 61% non-Hispanic white1994–20022.1% to 4.1%95%NDDGYes
Montana (U.S.) (14)44,299; 86% white2000–20032.0% to 2.2% in white; 2.4% to 2.9% in American Indian10% 21%GDM in infants’ birth certificatesNo
Melbourne (Australia) (7)35,253; 66% Australian1979–1983 and 1984–19883.3% to 7.5%127%Local criteria (7)No
New York City (U.S.) (15)236,003; 26% non-Hispanic white1990 and 20012.6% to 3.8%46%GDM in infants’ birth certificatesNo
  • ADA, American Diabetes Association criteria (29); ADIPS, Australasian Diabetes in Pregnancy Society criteria (12); NDDG, National Diabetes Data Group criteria (27); WHO, World Health Organization criteria (30).