Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://ir.mu.ac.ke:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/6139
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPastakia, Sonak D-
dc.contributor.authorNjuguna, Benson-
dc.contributor.authorOnyango, Beryl Ajwang’-
dc.contributor.authorWashington, Sierra-
dc.contributor.authorChristoffersen-Deb, Astrid-
dc.date.accessioned2022-03-28T07:23:58Z-
dc.date.available2022-03-28T07:23:58Z-
dc.date.issued2017-07-14-
dc.identifier.urihttp://ir.mu.ac.ke:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/6139-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Early diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is crucial to prevent short term delivery risks and long term effects such as cardiovascular and metabolic diseases in the mother and infant. Diagnosing GDM in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) however, remains sub-optimal due to associated logistical and cost barriers for resource-constrained populations. A cost-effective strategy to screen for GDM in such settings are therefore urgently required. We conducted this study to determine the prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and assess utility of various GDM point of care (POC) screening strategies in a resource-constrained setting. Methods: Eligible women aged ≥18 years, and between 24 and 32 weeks of a singleton pregnancy, prospectively underwent testing over two days. On day 1, a POC 1-h 50 g glucose challenge test (GCT) and a POC glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) was assessed. On day 2, fasting blood glucose, 1-h and 2-h 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) were determined using both venous and POC tests, along with a venous HbA1c. The International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group (IADPSG) criteria was used to diagnose GDM. GDM prevalence was reported with 95% confidence interval (CI). Specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the various POC testing strategies were determined using IADPSG testing as the standard reference. Results: Six hundred-sixteen eligible women completed testing procedures. GDM was diagnosed in 18 women, a prevalence of 2.9% (95% CI, 1.57% - 4.23%). Compared to IADPSG testing, POC IADPSG had a sensitivity and specificity of 55.6% and 90.6% respectively while that of POC 1-h 50 g GCT (using a diagnostic cut-off of ≥7.2 mmol/L [129.6 mg/ dL]) was 55.6% and 63.9%. All other POC tests assessed showed poor sensitivity. Conclusions: POC screening strategies though feasible, showed poor sensitivity for GDM detection in our resource-constrained population of low GDM prevalence. Studies to identify sensitive and specific POC GDM screening strategies using adverse pregnancy outcomes as end points are requireden_US
dc.description.sponsorshipNational Institutes of Health, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciencesen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherBiomed centralen_US
dc.subjectGestational diabetes mellitusen_US
dc.subjectScreeningen_US
dc.subjectPrevalenceen_US
dc.subjectDiagnosisen_US
dc.subjectLow middle incomeen_US
dc.titlePrevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus based on various screening strategies in western Kenya: a prospective comparison of point of care diagnostic methodsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
Appears in Collections:School of Medicine

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
NJUGUNA.pdf632.46 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.