Journal of Diabetes Research

Journal of Diabetes Research / 2021 / Article

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2021 |Article ID 6692695 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6692695

Yu Zhang, Cheng-Ming Xiao, Yan Zhang, Qiong Chen, Xiao-Qin Zhang, Xue-Feng Li, Ru-Yue Shao, Yi-Meng Gao, "Factors Associated with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis", Journal of Diabetes Research, vol. 2021, Article ID 6692695, 18 pages, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6692695

Factors Associated with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis

Academic Editor: Akira Sugawara
Received21 Dec 2020
Accepted29 Apr 2021
Published10 May 2021

Abstract

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a major public health issue, and the aim of the present study was to identify the factors associated with GDM. Databases were searched for observational studies until August 20, 2020. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models. 103 studies involving 1,826,454 pregnant women were identified. Results indicated that years (OR: 2.466, 95% CI: (2.121, 2.866)), prepregnancy overweight or obese (OR: 2.637, 95% CI: (1.561, 4.453)), family history of diabetes (FHD) (OR: 2.326, 95% CI: (1.904, 2.843)), history of GDM (OR: 21.137, 95% CI: (8.785, 50.858)), macrosomia (OR: 2.539, 95% CI: (1.612, 4.000)), stillbirth (OR: 2.341, 95% CI: (1.435, 3.819)), premature delivery (OR: 3.013, 95% CI: (1.569, 5.787)), and pregestational smoking (OR: 2.322, 95% CI: (1.359, 3.967)) increased the risk of GDM with all , whereas history of congenital anomaly and abortion, and HIV status showed no correlation with GDM (). Being primigravida (OR: 0.752, 95% CI: (0.698, 0.810), ) reduced the risk of GDM. The factors influencing GDM included , prepregnancy overweight or obese, FHD, history of GDM, macrosomia, stillbirth, premature delivery, pregestational smoking, and primigravida.

1. Introduction

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), defined as glucose intolerance of variable degree with onset or first recognition during pregnancy, is reported as one of the most common clinical complications of pregnancy [1, 2]. According to International Diabetes Federation (IDF) 2017, the prevalence of GDM is expected to be on the rise year by year [3]. Women with GDM may incur a potential risk of adverse outcomes [4, 5]. Mothers who have GDM are at risk of developing gestational hypertension and preeclampsia, at risk of suffering from caesarean section, and at risk of inducing subsequent type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and cardiovascular diseases [611]. Infants born from GDM women could be prone to abnormal fetal development such as being in macrosomia, having more congenital abnormalities, and having neonatal hypoglycemia [6, 12, 13]. Consequently, it is suggested that healthcare policy makers should be aware of the significance of GDM for early detection and further intervention.

To date, various relevant factors have been identified as predictors of GDM. Several studies have demonstrated that the frequently reported risk factors of GDM include older maternal ages, prepregnancy obesity, family history of diabetes (FHD) [14, 15], previous obstetric outcomes (e.g., macrosomia [16], stillbirth [17], abortion [18], premature delivery [19], congenital anomaly [16], being primigravida [20]), history of GDM [21], infection factors (e.g., Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) [22]), pregestational smoking [23], and socioeconomic factors (educational level, occupation, and monthly household income) [24]. However, there are other evidences suggesting that maternal age, FHD, prepregnancy overweight or obesity, previous history of abortion, stillbirth, and macrosomia showed no significant association with GDM [25, 26]. Since most of the information regarding the main factors involved in GDM lack comprehensive analysis, it is necessary to conduct a meta-analysis to further explore the potential factors responsible for GDM.

2. Materials and Methods

Our study has been approved by the Open Science Framework (OSF) registries (https://osf.io/registries), and the registration number is 10.17605/OSF.IO/4HJGN. This meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Since this study was based on a meta-analysis of published studies, it did not require patient consent and ethical approval.

2.1. Literature Search Strategy

Four online databases (Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library) were systematically searched for articles published till August 20, 2020. We searched PubMed using the following terms: “diabetes mellitus” OR “diabetes” AND “pregnancy” OR “pregnancies” OR “gestation” OR “diabetes, gestational” OR “diabetes, pregnancy-induced” OR “diabetes, pregnancy induced” OR “pregnancy induced diabetes” OR “gestational diabetes” OR “diabetes mellitus gestational” OR “gestational diabetes mellitus” AND “risk factor” OR “risk factors.”

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion criteria include the following: (1) women with GDM (the observation group) and with healthy pregnancies (the control group); (2) the reported relevant factors in our studies including years, prepregnancy overweight or obese, history of GDM, primigravida, history of congenital anomaly, FHD, history of macrosomia, HIV status, history of stillbirth, history of premature delivery, history of abortion, and pregestational smoking; and (3) observational studies.

Exclusion criteria include the following: (1) studies not published in English; (2) meta-analyses, reviews, conference summaries, case reports, letters, and guidelines; and (3) animal experiments.

2.3. Data Extraction and Quality Assessment

The data were extracted by two reviewers (Yu Zhang and Cheng-Ming Xiao) independently according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. If a conflict existed, the third reviewer (Yi-Meng Gao) would join in extracting the data. The following study features were extracted from each article: the first author’s name, year of publication, country, study design, maternal age (years), sample size, the number of GDM cases, and quality assessment scores. The revised Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scale was used for cross-sectional studies to evaluate the quality of the literature, with 1-13 being low-risk of bias, and 14-20 being high-risk of bias. The modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used for case-control studies and cohort studies, and the studies with scores of 1-4 were considered low quality, while those with scores of 5-10 were considered high quality.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed using Stata 15.1 software (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA). The factors were assessed by odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity tests were performed for each effect size, and random-effects models were adopted when ; otherwise, fixed effects models were performed. The publication bias was estimated using Egger’s test and adjusted by trim and fill method. A difference was considered statistically significant at .

3. Results

3.1. Literature Search

In this study, 3,586 articles were extracted from PubMed, 5,204 from Embase, 9,340 from Web of Science, 16 from the Cochrane Central, and 7 from other sources. After the removal of duplicate records (), 278 articles were excluded after screening of the titles and abstracts and another 103 through full-text screening for eligibility. Finally, a total of 103 studies (Supplementary Material 1) were included in our study for evaluating the relationship between these factors and GDM. The flow diagram is shown in Figure 1.

3.2. Study Characteristics

A total of 1,826,454 pregnant women were enrolled in this meta-analysis, divided into the observation group (with GDM) composed of 120,696 subjects and the control group (without GDM) composed of 1,705,758 subjects. In terms of the quality of our included studies, scores from the assessment by the revised NOS and JBI scales were summarized in Table 1. The quality scores ranged from 4 to 16. Of the 103 included studies, 29 articles were low quality, while 74 were high quality (Table 1).


AuthorYearCountryStudy designMaternal age (years)Sample sizesGDM casesQuality scores

Wagaarachchi2001Sri LankaCase-control1004415
Weijers2002AmsterdamCase-control561715
Yang2002ChinaCase-control98861774
Dempsey2004USACase-control5411556
Ozumba2004NigeriaCase-control4002005
Zhang2004ChinaCase-control327676
Hadaegh2005IranCase-control700626
Janghorbani2006UKCase-control3933654
Wijeyaratne2006Sri LankaCase-control4422745
Mamabolo2007South AfricaCase-control262234
Qiu2007USACase-control2011055
Cypryk2008PolandCase-control16705104
Hedderson2008USACase-control13233816
Hedderson2008USACase-control4552516
Murgia2008ItalyCase-control11032475
Bhat2010IndiaCase-control6003004
Harizopoulou2010GreeceCross-sectional160405
Hedderson2010USACase-control11343415
Ogonowski2010PolandCase-control242514146
Kuti2011NigeriaCase-control7651064
Morisset2011CanadaCase-control294555
Qiu2011USACase-control5961855
Anzaku2013NigeriaCross-sectional253215
Jao2013CameroonCross-sectional30.5 (27.5-34.5)316204
Khan2013PakistanCase-control2001035
Fawole2014IbadanCross-sectional10863512
Kirke2014AustraliaCase-control1636734
Mwanri2014TanzaniaCross-sectional9105414
Padmanabhan2014AustraliaCase-control33.0 (29.0-36.0)6823434
Rajput2014IndiaCase-control9131276
Tabatabaei2014CanadaCase-control96484
Bibi2015PakistanCross-sectional1905011
Erem2015TurkeyCross-sectional8153915
Olagbuji2015NigeriaCohort1059915
Oppong2015GhanaCross-sectional3993714
Robledo2015USACohort649952113345
Singh2015IndiaCase-control102515
Bowers2016DanishCase-control6993504
Mohan2016IndiaCase-control201324
Nasiri-Amiri2016IranCase-control2001006
Tomic2016Bosnia and HerzegovinaCross-sectional2853113
Abdelmola2017Saudi ArabiaCross-sectional363614
Anand2017CanadaCase-control10063656
Collier2017UKCase-control472909734
Farina2017ItalyCase-control33.5 (24-40)72126
Liu2017ChinaCase-control6003006
Mapira2017RwandaCross-sectional288245
Oriji2017NigeriaCase-control235355
Rawal2017USACase-control3211075
Sedaghat2017IranCase-control3881226
Sugiyama2017PalauCase-control1730955
Bartakova2018CzechCase-control33 (29-36)3632934
Egbe2018CameroonCross-sectional2004113
Feleke2018EthiopiaCase-control22575675
Larrabure-Torrealva2018AmericaCross-sectional130020515
Macaulay2018South AfricaCohort31 (27-36)741837
Macaulay2018South AfricaCross-sectional31 (27-36)190017415
Mak2018ChinaCohort13371996
Nhidza2018ZimbabweCross-sectional150105
Wu2018ChinaCase-control495910806
Xiao2018ChinaCase-control32 (29-34)15855995
Zaman2018IranCross-sectional52026016
Abualhamael2019Saudi ArabiaCase-control1961037
Agah2019IranCross-sectional6092814
Asadi2019IranCase-control2781306
Chakkalakal2019TennesseeCase-control89404
Chen2019ChinaCase-control955614644
Chen2019ChinaCase-control2491235
Hrolfsdottir2019IcelandCohort16512646
Hu2019ChinaCohort10142385
Huo2019ChinaCase-control4862437
Ijas2019FinlandCohort2457756805
Kouhkan2019IranCase-control2701356
Li2019ChinaCase-control4962484
Mak2019ChinaCohort14492296
Muche2019EthiopiaCross-sectional102713112
Olmedo-Requena2019SpainCross-sectional146629116
Rajasekar2019VelloreCross-sectional2257516
Rajput2019IndiaCase-control100507
Telejko2019PolandCohort31 (27-35)15083977
Wan (China)2019ChinaCase-control34193985
Wan (Australia)2019AustraliaCase-control2859411815
Wang2019ChinaCase-control15527767
Yan2019ChinaCohort78572138467
Yen2019ChinaCohort527745
Zahra2019PakistanCase-control2001035
Zhang2019ChinaCohort29.0 (27-32)20932415
Zhu2019ChinaCase-control31103995
Zhu2019ChinaCase-control32894295
Aburezq2020KuwaitCross-sectional6539215
Alsaedi2020Saudi ArabiaCase-control3472795
Bar-Zeev2020OhioCase-control222408128975
Basu2020IndiaCase-control7151276
Dos Santos2020BrazilCross-sectional228412614
Francis2020USACase-control3211077
Ganapathy2020IndiaCase-control140706
Giles2020AustraliaCross-sectional6712275480512
Kong2020ChinaCohort14411146
Lan2020ChinaCohort19106206
Li2020ChinaCase-control6103055
Mishra2020IndiaCase-control3731005
Rayis2020Saudi ArabiaCase-control30 (25-34)259484
Siddiqui2020Saudi ArabiaCross-sectional2185316
Yong2020The NetherlandsCohort452485

GDM: gestational diabetes mellitus.

The numbers of the included studies according to different factors are as follows: , ; prepregnancy overweight or obese, ; history of GDM, ; primigravida, ; history of congenital anomaly, ; FHD, ; history of macrosomia, ; HIV status, ; history of stillbirth, ; history of abortion, ; history of premature delivery, ; and pregestational smoking, .

3.3. Factors Associated with GDM

The results demonstrated that (OR: 2.466, 95% CI: (2.121, 2.866), ), prepregnancy overweight or obese (OR: 2.637, 95% CI: (1.561, 4.453), ), history of GDM (OR: 21.137, 95% CI: (8.785, 50.858), ), FHD (OR: 2.326, 95% CI: (1.904, 2.843), ), history of macrosomia (OR: 2.539, 95% CI: (1.612, 4.000), ), history of stillbirth (OR: 2.341, 95% CI: (1.435, 3.819), ), history of premature delivery (OR: 3.013, 95% CI: (1.569, 5.787), ), and pregestational smoking (OR: 2.322, 95% CI: (1.359, 3.967), ) were associated with a higher risk of GDM. Nonetheless, there were no significant differences in terms of the history of congenital anomaly (OR: 1.837, 95% CI: (0.418, 8.067), ), HIV status (OR: 1.168, 95% CI: (0.902, 1.512), ), and history of abortion (OR: 1.546, 95% CI: (0.906, 2.639), ). In addition, being primigravida (OR: 0.752, 95% CI: (0.698, 0.810), ) was associated with the reduced risk of GDM (Table 2, Figures 2(a)2(f) and 3(a)3(f)).


No.FactorsNo. studies includedOR95% CI heterogeneityBias heterogeneity

1362.4662.121, 2.86696.2<0.0010.190.243
2Prepregnancy overweight or obese482.6371.561, 4.45399.8<0.0014.850.001
3FHD742.3261.904, 2.84394.7<0.0011.830.081
4Primigravida560.7520.698, 0.81094.7<0.0011.530.132
5History of congenital anomaly31.8370.418, 8.0670.00.421
6History of GDM2421.1378.785, 50.85896.9<0.0011.350.181
7History of macrosomia262.5391.612, 4.00086.6<0.0012.240.035
8HIV status41.1680.902, 1.5120.00.238
9History of stillbirth112.3411.435, 3.81952.00.0010.180.862
10History of abortion191.5460.906, 2.63994.30.1100.260.800
11History of premature delivery33.0131.569, 5.7870.00.001
12Pregestational smoking92.3221.359, 3.96766.70.002

CI: confidence interval; FHD: family history of diabetes mellitus; GDM: gestational diabetes mellitus; HIV: human immunodeficiency virus; OR: odds ratio.
3.4. Sensitivity Analysis and Publication Bias

Sensitivity analysis of each factor was conducted, and the results were found to have stability without any difference in homogeneity and the synthesized results, despite the change of the factors that affected the results (Supplementary Material 2). Results of Egger’s test indicated that there was no significant publication bias in (, ), history of GDM (, ), primigravida (, ), FHD (, ), history of stillbirth (, ), and history of abortion (, ). Prepregnancy overweight or obese (, ) and history of macrosomia (, ) showed a publication bias, and after adjustments by the trim and fill method, there was no obvious asymmetry in the funnel plots, meaning no publication bias was detected (Table 2, Figures 4(a)4(b)).

4. Discussion

In this meta-analysis of 1,826,454 pregnant women from diverse international cohorts, our findings suggested that factors such as , prepregnancy overweight or obese, pregestational smoking, FHD, previous history of GDM, macrosomia, stillbirth, and premature delivery significantly increased the risk of GDM. Besides, being primigravida was associated with a lower risk of GDM, whereas history of congenital anomaly, HIV status, and history of abortion showed no impact on the risk of GDM; controlling these relevant factors for GDM could reduce the serious increase of the occurrence of GDM.

Maternal age was reported to be closely associated with GDM. Older maternal age increased the risk of developing GDM, and the threshold for lower risks was recommended as 25 years old by the American Diabetic Association [27], similar to the result of our meta-analysis. However, other studies differed with the result mentioned above, i.e., they recommended that maternal age greater than 35 years was more prone to GDM [20, 28]. Although it is shown that there is a certain difference in the cutoff value of maternal age, there is an inevitable risk of developing GDM with the annual increase of age in modern society [29]. The reason for increasing older ages at pregnancy may be related to the implementation of the universal two-child policy, especially in China, as well as a longer period of education and better access to birth control technologies.

Prepregnancy overweight or obese was another major risk factor identified in the current study. A study conducted by Mohan and Chandrakumar also demonstrated that prepregnancy weight management could reduce a woman’s risk of GDM [30]. There were other studies with similar results to ours [31, 32], despite their varieties of dietary habits and with most people consuming large amounts of alcoholic beverages. Counselling for pregnant women should emphasize the need for women to avoid sedentary lifestyles before pregnancy and to be aware of the risks of GDM to both themselves and the unborn child.

Our study also suggested that FHD (particularly in a first-degree relative) was strongly related to an increased risk of GDM, which had been observed in a previous study [33]. This was partly because of an increased susceptibility to GDM due to a genetic deficiency in insulin secretion from their first-degree relatives [34]. Therefore, it is important to emphasize that healthcare education providers must obtain accurate personal or family history from their recipients in order to identify at-risk mothers for preventing GDM.

Another significant medical factor associated with a higher risk for developing GDM was history of GDM. Interestingly, a retrospective study [35] and two case-control studies [21, 36] also had similar results showing that history of GDM was thought to be a common risk factor in repeated pregnancies [34].

Among the obstetric factors of GDM, Anzaku and Musa pointed out that women with previous history of macrosomia were the only independent risk factor for GDM in the next pregnancy [16], which was similar to our results. A case-control study indicated that women having a history of abortion increased the risk of developing GDM at the central hospitals of the Amhara region, Ethiopia [34]. In contrast to this finding, our study showed no significant association between GDM and previous history of abortion, while another study showed a similar result to ours [19]. Limited literatures reported an association between a history of fetal congenital anomaly or premature delivery and GDM. Our results, supported by a previous study, revealed that they had no link [37]. However, women who had a history of premature delivery would be prone to the development of GDM, and it can be attributed to the intrauterine damage of the mother and the fetus [38]; however, more research is required to affirm this result. The current study also indicated that pregnant women with a history of stillbirth would have a higher risk of developing GDM during future pregnancies. This finding was in line with a review conducted in Africa by Muche et al. [23]. A study conducted in Pakistan demonstrated that the incidence of GDM in primigravida Pakistani women was <1% [39]. A previous meta-analysis of 5 included studies implied that being primigravida would reduce the risk of GDM [37]. Our study of a larger trial containing 56 relevant studies has reached the same conclusion.

As for infection factors, Egbe et al. found that there were 13 out of 200 (6.5%) HIV-positive respondents through analysis, but no association between HIV and GDM was observed [17]. This finding was consistent with our meta-analysis, which was also supported by the research of Jao et al. [22] and a previous meta-analysis study conducted by Natamba et al. [37]. Because few studies have reported a link between HIV and GDM, their association still needs to be further explored through more researches.

With the exception of the most common risk factors, such as maternal age, prepregnancy overweight or obese, FHD, obstetric factors, and infection factors, this study demonstrated that there was a significant correlation between pregestational smoking and GDM. Previous studies have also noted that pregestational smoking was considered to be a risk factor, although its association has been rarely investigated at present [40]. This condition might be explained by the fact that there were several limitations in the way data collection related to smoking was conducted in our study. A recent systematic review examined the relationship between pregestational smoking and the risk of GDM, but no correlation was found [36]. The aspect of smoking in the development of GDM deserves further investigations. Possible uncontrolled confounding factors should be considered, such as the differences in socioeconomic status between groups, selection bias, or even passive smoking.

Strengths and limitations should be taken into account in further interpreting our findings. In terms of strengths, due to the high prevalence of GDM, our meta-analysis included studies conducted in different countries such as China, USA, Australia, and India, covering a number of nationwide representative populations, which to a certain extent had reduced the possible selection bias and reaching some relatively generalized conclusions. Nevertheless, the present study also had some limitations. Firstly, the role of confounding factors cannot be completely eliminated in our observational studies. Although majority of the articles included in the analysis evaluated multiple factors, limited studies have shown the association between other variables such as living quarters, substance abuse, dietary diversity, and physical activity issues with GDM. Prospective review studies need to clarify the correlation between GDM and the other factors mentioned above. Secondly, there is a high heterogeneity in our results which might also be attributed to the different demographic characteristics among populations in more than 37 countries covered by this meta-analysis. Additionally, qualitative studies about the reasons for GDM pathologically should be added in this review.

5. Conclusions

In our study, years, prepregnancy overweight or obese, FHD, previous history of GDM, macrosomia, stillbirth and premature delivery, pregestational smoking, and being primigravida were considered as all independent risk factors of GDM. It is strongly recommended that all pregnant women in the future be screened early for GDM, especially those identified at higher risks of GDM, thereby leading to early diagnosis of GDM and early intervention.

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are included within the article.

Ethical Approval

Since this study was based on a meta-analysis of published studies, it did not require patient consent and ethical approval.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this article.

Acknowledgments

We thank the participants included in our study for their contributions. This work was supported by the Key Clinical Specialty Development Project of Chongqing (grant number 2012143).

Supplementary Materials

References of included studies. Sensitivity analysis: (A) ; (B) prepregnancy overweight or obese; (C) FHD; (D) history of GDM; (E) HIV status; (F) pregestational smoking; (G) history of macrosomia; (H) history of stillbirth; (I) history of premature delivery; (J) history of abortion; (K) history of congenital anomaly; (L) primigravida. (Supplementary Materials)

References

  1. T. A. Buchanan, A. H. Xiang, and K. A. Page, “Gestational diabetes mellitus: risks and management during and after pregnancy,” Nature Reviews. Endocrinology, vol. 8, no. 11, pp. 639–649, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. D. R. Coustan, “Gestational diabetes mellitus,” Clinical Chemistry, vol. 59, no. 9, pp. 1310–1321, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. N. H. Cho, J. E. Shaw, S. Karuranga et al., “IDF diabetes atlas: global estimates of diabetes prevalence for 2017 and projections for 2045,” Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, vol. 138, pp. 271–281, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. U. Kampmann, L. R. Madsen, G. O. Skajaa, D. S. Iversen, N. Moeller, and P. Ovesen, “Gestational diabetes: a clinical update,” World Journal of Diabetes, vol. 6, no. 8, pp. 1065–1072, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. G. M. Brawerman and V. W. Dolinsky, “Therapies for gestational diabetes and their implications for maternal and offspring health: evidence from human and animal studies,” Pharmacological Research, vol. 130, pp. 52–73, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. B. E. Metzger, D. R. Coustan, and E. R. Trimble, “Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes,” Clinical Chemistry, vol. 65, no. 7, pp. 937-938, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. Z. Li, Y. Cheng, D. Wang et al., “Incidence rate of type 2 diabetes mellitus after gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 170,139 women,” Journal Diabetes Research, vol. 2020, article 3076463, pp. 1–12, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. Y. Yogev, E. M. Xenakis, and O. Langer, “The association between preeclampsia and the severity of gestational diabetes: the impact of glycemic control,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 191, no. 5, pp. 1655–1660, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. D. Marchetti, D. Carrozzino, F. Fraticelli, M. Fulcheri, and E. Vitacolonna, “Quality of life in women with gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review,” Journal Diabetes Research, vol. 2017, article 7058082, pp. 1–12, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. E. Vounzoulaki, K. Khunti, S. C. Abner, B. K. Tan, M. J. Davies, and C. L. Gillies, “Progression to type 2 diabetes in women with a known history of gestational diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis,” BMJ, vol. 369, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. R. Retnakaran, Y. Qi, P. W. Connelly, M. Sermer, B. Zinman, and A. J. Hanley, “Glucose intolerance in pregnancy and postpartum risk of metabolic syndrome in young women,” The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, vol. 95, no. 2, pp. 670–677, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. R. Retnakaran and B. R. Shah, “Glucose screening in pregnancy and future risk of cardiovascular disease in women: a retrospective, population-based cohort study,” The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 378–384, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. T. D. Clausen, E. R. Mathiesen, T. Hansen et al., “High prevalence of type 2 diabetes and pre-diabetes in adult offspring of women with gestational diabetes mellitus or type 1 diabetes: the role of intrauterine hyperglycemia,” Diabetes Care, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 340–346, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. A. W. Mwanri, J. Kinabo, K. Ramaiya, and E. J. Feskens, “Gestational diabetes mellitus in sub-Saharan Africa: systematic review and metaregression on prevalence and risk factors,” Tropical Medicine & International Health, vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 983–1002, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. K. Cypryk, W. Szymczak, L. Czupryniak, M. Sobczak, and A. Lewiński, “Gestational diabetes mellitus—an analysis of risk factors,” Endokrynologia Polska, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 393–397, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  16. A. S. Anzaku and J. Musa, “Prevalence and associated risk factors for gestational diabetes in Jos, north-central, Nigeria,” Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, vol. 287, no. 5, pp. 859–863, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. T. O. Egbe, E. S. Tsaku, R. Tchounzou, and M. N. Ngowe, “Prevalence and risk factors of gestational diabetes mellitus in a population of pregnant women attending three health facilities in Limbe, Cameroon: a cross-sectional study,” The Pan African Medical Journal, vol. 31, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. B. E. Feleke, “Determinants of gestational diabetes mellitus: a case-control study,” The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine, vol. 31, no. 19, pp. 2584–2589, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. J. Agah, F. Roodsarabi, A. Manzuri, M. Amirpour, and A. Hosseinzadeh, “Prevalence and associated risk factors of gestational diabetes mellitus in a tertiary hospital in Iran,” Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, vol. 46, pp. 85–89, 2019. View at: Google Scholar
  20. P. A. dos Santos, J. M. Madi, E. R. da Silva, D. de Oliveira Pereira Vergani, B. F. de Araújo, and R. M. R. Garcia, “Gestational diabetes in the population served by Brazilian public health care. Prevalence and risk factors,” Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia / RBGO Gynecology and Obstetrics, vol. 42, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. A. Ganapathy, R. Holla, B. B. Darshan et al., “Determinants of gestational diabetes mellitus: a hospital-based case–control study in coastal South India,” International Journal of Diabetes in Developing Countries, vol. 41, 2021. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. J. Jao, M. Wong, R. B. Van Dyke et al., “Gestational diabetes mellitus in HIV-infected and -uninfected pregnant women in Cameroon,” Diabetes Care, vol. 36, no. 9, pp. e141–e142, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. A. A. Muche, O. O. Olayemi, and Y. K. Gete, “Prevalence and determinants of gestational diabetes mellitus in Africa based on the updated international diagnostic criteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Archives of Public Health, vol. 77, no. 1, p. 36, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. A. B. Kirke, S. F. Evans, and B. N. Walters, “Gestational diabetes in a rural, regional centre in south Western Australia: predictors of risk,” Rural and Remote Health, vol. 14, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. F. Zaman, S. Nouhjah, H. Shahbazian, N. Shahbazian, S. M. Latifi, and A. Jahanshahi, “Risk factors of gestational diabetes mellitus using results of a prospective population-based study in Iranian pregnant women,” Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 721–725, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. S. Abualhamael, H. Mosli, M. Baig, A. M. Noor, and F. M. Alshehri, “Prevalence and associated risk factors of gestational diabetes mellitus at a university hospital in Saudi Arabia,” Pak J Med Sci, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 325–329, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. T. T. Lao, L. F. Ho, B. C. Chan, and W. C. Leung, “Maternal age and prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus,” Diabetes Care, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 948-949, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. S. Bibi, U. Saleem, and N. Mahsood, “The frequency of gestational diabetes mellitus and associated risk factors at khyber teaching hospital Peshawar,” Journal of Postgraduate Medical Institute, vol. 29, pp. 43–46, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  29. Y. Li, X. Ren, L. He, J. Li, S. Zhang, and W. Chen, “Maternal age and the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of over 120 million participants,” Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, vol. 162, p. 108044, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. M. A. Mohan and A. Chandrakumar, “Evaluation of prevalence and risk factors of gestational diabetes in a tertiary care hospital in Kerala,” Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 68–71, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. I. W. Yen, C. N. Lee, M. W. Lin et al., “Overweight and obesity are associated with clustering of metabolic risk factors in early pregnancy and the risk of GDM,” PLoS One, vol. 14, no. 12, article e0225978, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. L. Wu, L. Han, Y. Zhan, L. Cui, W. Chen, and L. Ma, “Prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus and associated risk factors in pregnant Chinese women: a cross-sectional study in Huangdao, Qingdao, China,” Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 27, pp. 383–388, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  33. M. Moosazadeh, Z. Asemi, K. B. Lankarani et al., “Family history of diabetes and the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus in Iran: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Diabetes and Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research and Reviews, vol. 11, Suppl 1, pp. S99–s104, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. Y. Shen, Y. Jia, Y. Li et al., “Genetic determinants of gestational diabetes mellitus: a case-control study in two independent populations,” Acta Diabetologica, vol. 57, no. 7, pp. 843–852, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. R. A. Barnes, T. Wong, G. P. Ross et al., “Excessive weight gain before and during gestational diabetes mellitus management: what is the impact?” Diabetes Care, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 74–81, 2020. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. Y. Y. Wang, Y. Liu, C. Li et al., “Frequency and risk factors for recurrent gestational diabetes mellitus in primiparous women: a case control study,” BMC Endocrine Disorders, vol. 19, no. 1, p. 22, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. B. K. Natamba, A. A. Namara, and M. J. Nyirenda, “Burden, risk factors and maternal and offspring outcomes of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA): a systematic review and meta-analysis,” BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, vol. 19, no. 1, p. 450, 2019. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. K. W. Lee, S. M. Ching, V. Ramachandran et al., “Prevalence and risk factors of gestational diabetes mellitus in Asia: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 494, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. A. Jawa, F. Raza, K. Qamar, A. Jawad, and J. Akram, “Gestational diabetes mellitus is rare in primigravida Pakistani women,” Indian Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 191–193, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. N. Tabatabaei, Y. Giguere, J.-C. Forest, C. J. Rodd, R. Kremer, and H. A. Weiler, “Osteocalcin is higher across pregnancy in Caucasian women with gestational diabetes mellitus,” Canadian Journal of Diabetes, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 307–313, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2021 Yu Zhang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views229
Downloads191
Citations

Related articles

Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of 2020, as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles.