Table 1—

Studies reporting GDM in relation to a woman's own birth weight

AuthorPopulation/locationSample sizePresentationFindings
Pettitt and Knowler (14)Pima IndiansPrevalence by birth weightU-shaped association of diabetes prevalence
Age 15–24 years57315- to 24-year-old group, highest rate in birth weight ≥4.5 kg
Age 25–34 years25825- to 34-year-old group, highest rate in birth weight <2.5 kg
Williams et al. (15)Washington State41,839Prevalence by birth weight
Non-Hispanic white21,528Linear inverse relationship
African-American6,359U-shaped—significantly higher at <2,000 and ≥4,000 g
Native American7,456Linear inverse
Hispanic6,496Linear from <2,000–3,000 g, flat above 3,000 g
Egeland et al. (16)Norway: birth registry138,714Prevalence by birth weightU-shaped—significantly higher at <2,500 g
Innes et al. (17)New York State Birth Registry 1994–199823,314Prevalence by birth weightU-shaped—significant linear inverse trend from <2,000–4,000 g; ≥4,000 g significantly higher
Seghieri et al. (18)Pistoia, Italy: women with positive 50-g screen604Prevalence by birth weightSignificantly higher at birth weight <2,600 g; unrelated at higher birth weights
Savona-Ventura and Chircop (19)Malta324 with GDMFrequency distribution of birth weightBirth weight distribution significantly different from that of the general population; higher at 1,000–2,000 g (risk ratio = 2.8) and at ≥4,500 g (risk ratio = 2.7)
Bo et al. (20)Torino, Italy50 with IGT; 50 with GDM; 200 normalFrequency distribution of birth weightBirth weight distribution among IGT/GDM significantly different from normal; linear inverse among IGT/GDM, flat across quartiles among women with normal OGTT
Moses et al. (21)Australia138 with GDM2-h glucose by birth sizeSGA women with GDM had higher 2-h glucose
  • IGT, impaired glucose tolerance; SGA, small for gestational age.