SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ankara Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi Tıp Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 51 - Sayı: 1

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE GLUCOSE LOADING TEST? THE IMPACT OF MEDIA ON PUBLIC HEALTH

ŞEKER YÜKLEME TESTINE NE OLDU? MEDYANIN HALK SAĞLIĞI ÜZERINE ETKISI

Yetkin KARASU
Pages
54–58
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This change was sta- tistically significant (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:INTRODUCTION: After a famous clinician claims that the sugar loading test is harmful, we investigate whether the frequency of app- lication of glucose loading tests in our clinic is affected METHODS: The number and rates of glucose loading tests perfor- med at the Ankara Training and Research Hospital Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinic between January 2012 and December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed.
📊
Key Findings & Data:FINDINGS: From the second half of 2014, it was observed that the frequency of application of glucose loading tests decreased.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This change was sta- tistically significant (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2012 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: After a famous clinician claims that the sugar loading test is harmful, we investigate whether the frequency of app- lication of glucose loading tests in our clinic is affected METHODS: The number and rates of glucose loading tests perfor- med at the Ankara Training and Research Hospital Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinic between January 2012 and December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. The frequency of testing was compared by years. FINDINGS: From the second half of 2014, it was observed that the frequency of application of glucose loading tests decreased. The ra- tes of GCT and OGTT performed in our hospital are highest in 2013 (7.55%) and this rate has been decreasing since 2014. This ratio is 4.01% in 2015. In 2017, it decreased to 3.9%. This change was sta- tistically significant (p

Özet

AMAÇ: Ünlü bir hekimin şeker yükleme testinin zararlı olduğunuiddia etmesinden sonra kliniğimizde şeker yükleme testlerinin uy- gulanma sıklığının etkilenip etkilenmediğini araştırmaktır.YÖNTEM: Ocak 2012-Aralık 2017 tarihleri arasında Ankara Eği- tim ve Araştırma Hastanesi Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum Kliniğigebe polikliniğinde uygulanan şeker yükleme testlerinin sayı veoranları retrospektif olarak incelendi. Testlerin uygulanma sıklıklarıyıllara göre Kruskal Wallis Test veya Mann Whitney U Test kullanı- larak karşılaştırıldı.BULGULAR: 2014 yılı ikinci yarısından itibaren şeker yüklemetestlerinin uygulanma sıklığının azaldığı görüldü. Hastanemizdeyapılan şeker yükleme test oranları 2013’te en yüksekken (%7.55)bu oran 2014 yılından itibaren düşmüştür. Bu oran 2015’te %4.01’e;2017’de ise %3.9’a düşmüştür. Bu değişim istatistiksel olarak anlam- lıydı (p

🔖

Cite This Article

KARASU, Y. (2022). WHAT HAPPENED TO THE GLUCOSE LOADING TEST? THE IMPACT OF MEDIA ON PUBLIC HEALTH. Ankara Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 51 - Sayı: 1, 54–58. https://ajindex.com/articles/441323

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. )Hoffman SJ, Mansoor Y, Natt N, Sritharan L, Belluz J, Caulfield T, et al. Celebrities' impact on health-related knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and status outcomes: protocol for a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis. Syst Rev. 2017
  2. 6(1):13. 2.)Evers C, Fischer C, Dikow N, Schott S. Familial breast cancer: Genetic counseling over time, including patients expectations and initiators considering the Angelina Jolie effect. PloS one. 2017
  3. 12(5):e0177893. 3.)Cundy T, Gamble G, Townend K, Henley PG, MacPherson P, Roberts AB. Perinatal mortality in Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med. 2000
  4. 17(1):33-9. 4.)Hartling L, Dryden DM, Guthrie A, Muise M, Vandermeer B, Aktary WM, et al. Screening and diagnosing gestational diabetes mellitus. Evidence report/technology assessment. 2012(210):1-327. 5.)Dodd JM, Crowther CA, Antoniou G, Baghurst P, Robinson JS. Screening for gestational diabetes: the effect of varying blood glucose definitions in the prediction of adverse maternal and infant health outcomes. The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology. 2007
  5. 47(4):307-12. 6.)Group HSCR, Metzger BE, Lowe LP, Dyer AR, Trimble ER, Chaovarindr U, et al. Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes. The New England journal of medicine. 2008
  6. 358(19):1991-2002. 7.)Jensen DM, Korsholm L, Ovesen P, Beck-Nielsen H, MolstedPedersen L, Damm P. Adverse pregnancy outcome in women with mild glucose intolerance: is there a clinically meaningful threshold value for glucose? Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica. 2008
  7. 87(1):59-62. 8.)Helton MR, Arndt J, Kebede M, King M. Do low-risk prenatal patients really need a screening glucose challenge test? J Fam Pract. 1997
  8. 44(6):556-61. 9.)Chevalier N, Fenichel P, Giaume V, Loizeau S, Bongain A, Daideri G, et al. Universal two-step screening strategy for gestational diabetes has weak relevance in French Mediterranean women: should we simplify the screening strategy for gestational diabetes in France? Diabetes & metabolism. 2011
  9. 37(5):419-25. 10.)Danilenko-Dixon DR, Van Winter JT, Nelson RL, Ogburn PL, Jr. Universal versus selective gestational diabetes screening: application of 1997 American Diabetes Association recommendations. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 1999
  10. 181(4):798-802. 11.)Committee on Practice B-O. Practice Bulletin No. 180: Gestational Diabetes Mellitus. Obstetrics and gynecology. 2017
  11. 130(1):e17-e37. 12.)Wang C, Guelfi KJ, Yang HX. Exercise and its role in gestati