Review Article
Scientific Evidence for Different Options for GDM Screening and Management: Controversies and Review of the Literature
Table 3
RCTs comparing the One-Step to the Two-Step methods.
| | Author (origin) | Study group | Control group (1) | Control group (2) | GDM rate | Primary outcome |
| | Meltzer et al., 2010 (Canada) [19] | One-Step (2 h, 75 g) | Two-Step (50 g, 1 h; 100 g, 3 h) | Two-Step (50 g, 1 h; 75 g, 3 h) | 3.6% versus 3.7% versus 3.7% | Costs of screening | | Sevket et al., 2013 (Turkey) [20] | One-Step (2 h, 75 g) | Two-Step (50 g, 1 h; 100 g, 3 h) | | 14.5% versus 6% | Maternal and neonatal outcomes | | Scifres et al., 2014 (USA) [21] | One-Step (2 h, 75 g) | Two-Step (50 g, 1 h; 100 g, 3 h) | | 4.3% versus 0.0% | Maternal and neonatal outcomes |
|
|
