Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: One-step vs 2-step gestational diabetes mellitus screening and pregnancy outcomes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors: Gomes, Cintia
Futterman, Itamar D
Sher, Olivia
Gluck, Bracha
Hillier, Teresa A
Ramezani Tehrani, Fahimeh
Chaarani, Nadim
Fisher, Nelli
Berghella, Vincenzo
McLaren, Rodney A
Affiliations: Faculty of Medicine 
Keywords: Gestational diabetes
Intensive care unit
Pregnancy outcome
Issue Date: 2024-03-11
Part of: American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology MFM
Volume: 6
Issue: 5
This was a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing maternal and neonatal outcomes of patients screened with the 1-step or 2-step screening method for gestational diabetes mellitus.
PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane,, and LILACS were searched from inception up to September 2022.
Only randomized controlled trials were included. Studies that had overlapping populations were excluded (International Prospective Register of Systematic Review registration number: CRD42022358903).
Risk ratios were computed with 95% confidence intervals by 2 authors. Unpublished data were requested. Large for gestational age was the primary outcome.
The search yielded 394 citations. Moreover, 7 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. A total of 54,650 participants were screened for gestational diabetes mellitus by either the 1-step screening method (n=27,163) or the 2-step screening method (n=27,487). For large for gestational age, there was no significant difference found between the groups (risk ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.93–1.05; I2=0%). Newborns of patients who underwent 1-step screening had higher rates of neonatal hypoglycemia (risk ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.14–1.34; I2=0%) and neonatal intensive care unit admissions (risk ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.04–1.21; I2=0%) than newborns of patients who underwent 2-step screening. Patients in the 1-step screening method group were more likely to be diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus (risk ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.44–2.09; I2=80%) than patients in the 2-step screening method group. In addition, among trials that tested all patients before randomization and excluded patients with pregestational diabetes mellitus, newborns were more likely to have macrosomia (risk ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.21–1.34; I2=0%). Overall risk of bias assessment was of low concern.
Large for gestational age did not differ between patients screened using the 1-step screening method and those screened using the 2-step screening method. However, patients randomized to the 1-step screening method had higher rates of neonatal hypoglycemia and neonatal intensive care unit admission and maternal gestational diabetes mellitus diagnosis than the patients randomized to the 2-step screening method.
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101346
Open URL: Link to full text
Type: Journal Article
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Medicine

Show full item record

Record view(s)

checked on May 25, 2024

Google ScholarTM


Dimensions Altmetric

Dimensions Altmetric

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