Skip to main content
. 2024 Dec 23;15:1486861. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2024.1486861

Table 3.

Subgroup analysis of incidence for the development of T2DM in GDM women.

Subgroup No Incidence of GDM (95% CI) heterogeneity Effective model Z p
I² (%) p
Location
North America 20 0.22 (0.19, 0.25) 99.2 0.000 Random 14.01 <0.001
Asia 12 0.14 (0.11, 0.18) 97.3 0.000 Random 8.49 <0.001
Oceania 5 0.19 (0.08, 0.30) 96.0 0.000 Random 3.44 0.001
Europe 5 0.24 (0.11, 0.37) 98.3 0.000 Random 3.58 <0.001
Study design
Retrospective 23 0.20 (0.16, 0.24) 99.5 0.000 Random 10.22 <0.001
Prospective 20 0.21 (0.18, 0.25) 99.3 0.000 Random 11.40 <0.001
Sample
<500 19 0.28 (0.21, 0.35) 96.8 0.000 Random 7.96 <0.001
>500 25 0.16 (0.13, 0.19) 99.7 0.000 Random 10.17 <0.001
Diagnostic criteria of GDM
ADA 2 0.17 (-0.07, 0.40) 99.7 0.000 Random 1.41 0.157
IADPSG 8 0.12 (0.08, 0.15) 98.8 0.000 Random 7.06 <0.001
ADPSG 2 0.17 (-0.03, 0.38) 98.4 0.000 Random 1.65 0.099
NDDG 6 0.18 (0.13, 0.23) 94.5 0.000 Random 7.43 <0.001
Others 3 0.29 (0.13, 0.44) 97.1 0.000 Random 3.56 <0.001
Diagnostic criteria of T2DM
WHO 13 0.17 (0.14, 0.21) 97.7 0.000 Random 9.25 <0.001
NDDG 7 0.17 (0.14, 0.20) 97.4 0.000 Random 10.37 <0.001
ADA 13 0.21 (0.17, 0.26) 99.1 0.000 Random 9.94 <0.001