Talk:Gestational diabetes

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gestational diabetes article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Gestational diabetes was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 1, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Medicine High‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's Health Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Gestational diabetes.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ambiemurph.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Older Comments

This article on Gestational Diabetes seems rather simple and almost incomplete, especially compated to the article on Diabetes Mellitus. I would like to recommend that it recieve a "stub" tag asking visitors to help complete the article. 67.5.53.224 21:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Jeffrey[reply]

I added a "prognosis" section to more fully explain how this condition resolves after the pregnancy. It more accurately describes some of the information in the "Associated Conditions" section. I think the "Associated Conditions" section could be removed now, since the information is present elsewhere in the article. --Caffeinebump 02:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review comments

A few suggestions to improve the article:

The prose is often unclear, especially in technical passages. For example, from the pathophysiology section: The hallmark of GDM is increased insulin resistance; because other factors interfere with the action of insulin (at the level of the cell signaling behind the insulin receptor), it cannot get into the cells properly, so the blood level rises. What does it mean that the "blood level rises"?

The article needs a good close read-through to make sure that the text will make sense to an educated layman.

The lists (of risk factors and screening tests) should be converted to prose.
The article is skewed toward coverage of screening tests. I would suggest creating new articles for each of the tests or perhaps one article for all of them, and using summary style to include relevant information in the main article. For the future, it would probably be a good idea to focus on expanding the pathology and epidemiology sections and paring down some of the other sections by removing non-specific information and combining sentences. (For example Any diet needs to provide sufficient calories for pregnancy. The main goal of dietary modifications is to avoid peaks in blood sugar levels. becomes Dietary interventions in GDM must provide sufficient calories to support pregnancy while avoiding peaks in blood sugar levels.)
The article needs a thorough copy-edit. I've fixed spelling errors and grammar through the epidemiology section, but the rest needs to be checked for the type of errors I found above: subject-verb agreement, punctuation, etc.

Feel free to ask questions or give comments here or on my talk page. Cheers, --Gimme danger 02:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time, your great copy-editing and your thorough analysis. I almost completely agree with you. I have some concerns though about creating seperate articles for the individual tests. An article about the oral glucose tolerance test exists already. The others probably don't deserve an article, because such an article would be very small, and probably identical to what a featured article on gestational diabetes should contain. I agree that this article is skewed towards screening, although I think that might be somewhat intrinsic to the subject. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 01:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other

Should caudal regression syndrome be mentioned in this article? 24.99.86.24 (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not distinguish clearly enough between autoimmune gestational diabetes and insulin resistant diabetes. It is a very important distinction--women with autoimmune gestational diabetes should be treated immediately with exogenous insulin. An article in the July 2007 issue of "Diabetes Care" indicated that autoimmune gestational diabetes (new onset Type 1 diabetes) accounts for about 10 percent of all Caucasian women diagnosed with gestational diabetes. In a recent study of Sardinian women (Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, 2008), 40 percent of women with GDM were antibody positive (GAD, IAA, and/or IA-2) and had autoimmune gestational diabetes. (Sardinia has the second highest prevalence of Type 1 diabetes in the world, after Finland). The signs that a woman may have autoimmune gestational diabetes are: slim and require insulin during pregnancy to control GDM, it is likely that you have autoimmune gestational diabetes. The definitive test for autoimmune gestational diabetes/Type 1 diabetes is autoantibody testing (GAD, ICA, IA-2, ZnT8). If a woman is autoantibody positive, she has autoimmune gestational diabetes and should be treated with exogenous insulin immediately for her health and the health of her baby. Additionally, some signs of autoimmune GDM are being diagnosed under the age of 30, having no or little family history of Type 2 diabetes, and being diagnosed (or testing positive for sugar in urine tests) before 25 weeks gestation. Redyoga (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Reece, EA (2009 May 23). "Gestational diabetes: the need for a common ground". Lancet. 373 (9677): 1789–97. PMID 19465234. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glucose Tolerance Testing

Further distinction needs to be included here on the criteria used to diagnose gestational diabetes using the 75 gram glucose tolerance test. The criteria mentioned in the OGTT section under screening may not be correct stating "An alternative test uses a 75 g glucose load and measures the blood glucose levels before and after 1 and 2 hours, using the same reference values" as the 100 gram test.

I'm also not sure if mention of the 50 gram glucose tolerance tests needs to be included here since it is used as an indicator of when to use the 100 gram test; it should be added to the Glucose Tolerance Test page. Regarr (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More recent sources

Screening and Diagnosing Gestational Diabetes Mellitus, November 2012, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality - Evidence-based Practice.

Oral drugs - meta analysis

doi:10.1210/jc.2014-4403 JFW | T@lk 09:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request undo of Bennv123 removal of citations (04:09, 2 July 2021)

Bennv123 removed some citations because I added them as one of the authors of the study. The study was a systematic review addressing the most common fear mothers have about one of the most important treatments for gestational diabetes: namely that exercise will harm their baby. It is an important public health fact that mothers can safely exercise in pregnancy. Still, I have a self-cite COI, have declared on the page, and on my profile, but hope the safety clarifications are reinstated. Noetel (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Refs for future use

[1] has details on history of gestational diabetes (preceding the term's widespread use). Saw it cited in [2]. Ajpolino (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]