Talk:Gestational diabetes

message: 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)
thread_title: Older Comments

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  GA review comments 

message: Should caudal regression syndrome be mentioned in this article? 24.99.86.24 (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other 

message: * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Review

message: 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)
thread_title: Glucose Tolerance Testing

message: doi:10.1210/jc.2014-4403 JFW | T@lk 09:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oral drugs - meta analysis 

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

message: * has details on history of gestational diabetes (preceding the term's widespread use). Saw it cited in . Ajpolino (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs for future use