| Article Access Statistics | | | Viewed | 3885 | | | Printed | 106 | | | Emailed | 0 | | | PDF Downloaded | 29 | | | Comments | [Add] | | |
|
Click on image for details.
|
|
 |
| LETTER |
|
|
|
| Year : 2015 | Volume
: 61
| Issue : 4 | Page : 266 |
Conducting evaluation in gestational diabetes
SK Raina
Department of Community Medicine, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Government Medical College, Tanda, Himachal Pradesh, India
| Date of Web Publication | 5-Oct-2015 |
Correspondence Address:
S K Raina
Department of Community Medicine, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Government Medical College, Tanda, Himachal Pradesh
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/0022-3859.166517
How to cite this article:
Raina S K. Conducting evaluation in gestational diabetes. J Postgrad Med 2015;61:266 |
Sir,
I went through the article entitled "Evaluation of the prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus in North Indians using the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study groups (IADPSG) criteria" with interest, published in Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, 2015; 61:155-8. [1] The authors deserve credit for their efforts. However, I have a few concerns with this study. First, the authors have used the title "evaluation of the prevalence," which may not be appropriate in the context of the present study. Evaluation is a systematic determination of a subject's merit, worth, and significance using the criteria governed by a set of standards. Evaluation is used to assist an organization, program, project, or any other intervention or initiative to assess any aim, realizable concept/proposal, or any alternative to help in decision making or to ascertain the degree of achievement or value in regard to the aims and objectives and results of any such action that has been completed. In this context, it seems the use of evaluation may be reviewed again.
This brings me to my second point of concern. The authors state that they prospectively studied 332 pregnant women attending the antenatal clinics in three government-run urban hospitals (Queen Mary Hospital, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences, and Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, all the three being in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India) from June 2012 to July 2013. [1] Then, the authors state that the mean age of the subjects was 25.1 ± 3.9 years and their height, weight, and body mass index (BMI) were 150.9 ± 5.8 cm, 54.7 ± 8.8 kg, and 24.0 ± 3.6 kg/m 2 , respectively. It appears that the authors have calculated the BMI of the pregnant females using the following formula:
BMI = Weight (kg)/Height (m 2)
I have some reservations with the criteria used to define the BMI in this study. The cutoffs used in this study (based on the formula stated above) are applicable to normal adult populations and cannot be applied to pregnant women. It is expected that a pregnant women will gain weight due to pregnancy, which may affect her BMI. Therefore, BMI in pregnancy needs to be viewed in the light of this weight gain. The guidelines outlined by Mayo Clinic in this regard can be considered before deciding on the status of obesity in pregnancy. [2] The situation is further complicated in case of twin pregnancy.
Finally, the authors have made a universal use of Kuppuswamy scale for the assessment of socioeconomic status of the study population without reflecting on the residential status of the study participants. Was it that all the patients attending the three health facilities belong to urban areas only?
| :: References | |  |
| 1. | Gopalakrishnan V, Singh R, Pradeep Y, Kapoor D, Rani AK, Pradhan S, et al. Evaluation of the prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus in North Indians using the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study groups (IADPSG) criteria. J Postgrad Med 2015;61:155-8.  [ PUBMED]  |
| 2. | Raina SK. Gestational diabetes mellitus and associated risk factors. Indian J Med Res 2013;138:366. |
|
