Skip to main content
Download PDF

Gestational diabetes mellitus and risk of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome volume 16, Article number: 294 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Aim

Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM), a common pregnancy complication characterized by glucose intolerance, is increasingly recognized as a risk factor for Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome (NRDS). This study aimed to systematically review and quantify the association between GDM and NRDS.

Methods

A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science from their inception through July 30, 2024, to identify relevant studies. A total of 44 studies, including 50 datasets and over 6.2 million participants, were included in the analysis. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and assess heterogeneity among studies. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on study design, gestational age, diagnostic methods, and geographical regions.

Results

Our meta-analysis demonstrated a statistically significant association between GDM and an increased risk of NRDS in newborns (OR 1.9; 95%CI 1.5–2.3). A sub-group analysis based on studies participants showed significant association in both GDM-based (OR, 2.0; 95%CI, 1.5–2.7) and NRSD-based studies (OR, 1.7; 95%CI, 1.3–2.3). This association was consistent across other various subgroups, including both term and preterm pregnancies and across different continents. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of these findings, and cumulative meta-analysis showed a steady increase in the strength of the association over time.

Conclusion

Our findings highlight GDM as a significant risk factor for NRDS, underscoring the need for early detection and effective management of GDM to reduce adverse neonatal outcomes. However, limitations such as residual confounding, high heterogeneity among studies, and evidence of publication bias should be considered when interpreting these results. Future research should address these issues by including diverse populations and accounting for key confounders to better understand the GDM-NRDS relationship and explore targeted interventions to mitigate the risk in infants born to mothers with GDM.

Introduction

Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome (NRDS) is a serious respiratory condition that primarily affects preterm infants; however, term infants are also at risk [1]. It is characterized by insufficient production of surfactant, a substance that prevents the collapse of the lungs’ alveoli, leading to impaired gas exchange and respiratory failure [2]. Globally, NRDS accounts for a substantial proportion of neonatal deaths, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, particularly in Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, where access to advanced neonatal care is limited [1, 3]. The condition’s epidemiological burden is considerable, with an estimated incidence of 1–7% among live births, and it accounts for 30 to 40% of newborn hospital admissions [4, 5]. Risk factors for NRDS include preterm birth, male gender, cesarean delivery, maternal diabetes, and perinatal asphyxia [6]. Among these, maternal diabetes mellitus (gestational or pre-gestational) has been increasingly recognized as a critical risk factor for the development of NRDS in newborns, even in those born at term [7].

Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) is a form of diabetes first diagnosed during pregnancy, characterized by glucose intolerance and hyperglycemia [8]. It affects a significant percentage of pregnancies worldwide, with prevalence rates ranging from 1% to > 30%, depending on the population studied and the diagnostic criteria used [8]. Regarding WHO regions, the highest prevalence of GDM was estimated for the Eastern Mediterranean and South-East Asia regions (median ∼ 15%), and the lowest prevalence was estimated for European and North America/Caribbean regions (median 6–7%) [8]. GDM poses a considerable health burden, contributing to both maternal and neonatal morbidity [9]. For the mother, GDM increases the risk of hypertensive disorders, cesarean delivery, and the future development of type 2 diabetes [10]. For the infant, GDM is associated with a range of adverse outcomes, including macrosomia, birth trauma, preterm birth, and metabolic complications [11]. Of particular concern is the increased risk of NRDS, which is thought to be due to delayed lung maturation associated with the hyperglycemic environment in utero [7].

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate and synthesize the existing evidence on the association between GDM and the risk of NRDS. By pooling data from multiple studies, this analysis aims to provide a clearer understanding of the extent to which GDM contributes to the development of NRDS, which could inform clinical practices and guidelines for managing pregnancies complicated by GDM.

Methods

This meta-analysis study was done based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines [12]. A Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcome (PECO) framework was established as follows: The population included pregnant women diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The exposure was GDM. The comparison was pregnant women without GDM. The outcome was the incidence of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). Based on this framework, the research question was proposed: What is the risk of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome in infants born to mothers with gestational diabetes mellitus compared to those born to mothers without GDM?

Search strategy

At first, we developed a search strategy for PubMed with the assistance of a medical information specialist. The strategy included a combination of Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and keywords related to GDM and RDS. This search strategy was then adapted for use in other databases as needed to ensure comprehensive coverage of relevant studies (Table S1). We used following keywords and linked them using the Boolean operators OR and/or AND: “maternal diabetes”, “gestational diabetes”, “pregnancy diabetes”, “infants of diabetic mothers”, “GDM”, “diabetes”, “respiratory distress syndrome”, “hyaline membrane disease”, “RDS”, “respiratory distress”, “acute respiratory distress syndrome”. Then, we did comprehensive searches on four scientific databases including PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science to identify potential eligible studies published from inception through July 30, 2024 without any language, time or geographical restrictions. We further searched the bibliographies of articles that met inclusion criteria as well as relevant reviews or systematic reviews articles and Google Scholar (20 first pages) to identify further eligible studies and gray literature. Google Translate (https://translate.google.com/) was used to assess non-English articles for potential inclusion. EndNote X20.0 software (Thomson Reuters, California, USA) was employed for record management, deduplication, and the initial screening of abstracts and titles.

Study selection criteria

Two researchers (FY and HL) independently assessed all retrieved studies for inclusion, with any discrepancies resolved by a third investigator (CD). The inclusion criteria were as follows: (a) comparative cross-sectional, cohort, or case-control studies; (b) studies where the exposure group consisted of pregnant women with GDM or infants born to women with GDM; (c) studies that included appropriate and representative healthy participants as a control group; (d) studies where the outcome of interest was neonatal RDS; and (e) studies that reported relative risk (RR), odds ratio (OR), or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) or adequate data to calculate these. We excluded studies if they: (a) had a sample size of fewer than 30 participants; (b) included pregnant women with pre-existing diabetes mellitus (pre-GDM); (c) used datasets duplicated in other studies; (d) focused solely on neonatal RDS without providing extractable data on maternal characteristics; (e) lacked a control group; or (f) did not present original data, such as case reports, case series, literature reviews, or systematic reviews.

Data extraction and quality assessment

Two investigators (FY and HL) independently extracted the following data from each study: the first author’s name, the year of publication, the time period during which the study was conducted, the country in which the study took place, the WHO region, the country’s income level, the study design, the method used to diagnose GDM, the gestational age of pregnant women, the number of cases screened, the number of infants who developed RDS, the adjusted OR, RR or HR with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for RDS risk (if available), and the variables used to adjust the OR. The studies were categorized into two sub-groups based on the type of participants: (a) GDM-based studies, where pregnant women with and without GDM were followed to assess the incidence of RDS in their infants, and (b) NRDS-based studies, where infants with and without RDS were retrospectively evaluated in relation to the health status of their mothers, specifically considering GDM. The quality of the studies included in the analysis was rigorously assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS), a tool specifically designed to evaluate the methodological soundness of non-randomized studies. This scale examines various aspects of study design, including the selection of study groups, the comparability of the groups, and the ascertainment of outcomes or exposures. Each study was assigned a score based on these criteria, with a maximum possible score of 9 points. A score of 7 or higher was considered indicative of high methodological quality, reflecting robust design and reliable findings.

Statistical analysis

All analyses were conducted using Stata software (version 17.0; Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA). Statistical significance was determined with two-sided P-values, where P ≤ 0.05 was considered significant. The effect size was represented as odds ratios (ORs), and pooled measures were synthesized using inverse-variance random-effects models (REM) [13]. Heterogeneity among studies was evaluated using the I² statistic and χ² test [14]. Meta-regression was performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity, including publication year, sample size, continent, study design (cohort or case-control), study quality assessment score, and participant type [15]. A separate REM analysis was conducted using only adjusted ORs. Additionally, subgroup analyses were carried out based on continent, study design, WHO region, country income level, and study quality. Influence analysis was used to identify any individual studies that significantly impacted the pooled results. A cumulative meta-analysis was performed to illustrate the trend of results over time by sequentially adding studies based on publication year. Funnel plot asymmetry and publication bias were assessed using Begg’s test [16].

Results

Our comprehensive search across four major databases initially identified 24,021 studies, with an additional 102 studies found through Google Scholar and manual reference list searches. Following preliminary screening and the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 44 studies comprising 50 datasets published between 2002 and 2024 were deemed eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60]. The study selection process, along with the reasons for excluding certain studies, is illustrated in Fig. 1 using a PRISMA flowchart. The included studies comprised 13 case-control, 9 prospective cohort, and 28 retrospective studies, with a combined total of 220,122 cases and 4,081,397 healthy controls. These studies were conducted across 23 countries, including Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, China, France, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Mexico, Poland, Portugal, North Macedonia, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and the USA. In terms of geographic distribution, the studies spanned five WHO regions, with the exception of the African region. Among the included datasets, 34 were GDM-based and 16 were NRDS-based studies. Based on quality assessment, 44 datasets were classified as high quality and six as moderate quality. The key characteristics of the eligible studies are summarized in Table 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow chart showing study selection process for studies evaluation the association between gestational diabetes mellitus and risk of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome

Full size image
Table 1 Main characteristics of studies included assessing the relationship between gestational diabetes mellitus and neonatal respiratory distress syndrome
Full size table

Results of overall meta-analysis

As illustrated in Fig. 2, the overall meta-analysis identified a statistically significant positive association between GDM and the incidence of NRDS (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.5–2.3; I² = 97.6; p < 0.001). Additional analysis using a REM on adjusted ORs further supported this significant positive association (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1–1.5; I² = 90.6%; Fig. 3). The assessment of potential “small-study effects” through funnel plots, as shown in Figure S1, revealed asymmetry, suggesting the presence of publication bias. However, Begg’s test did not provide evidence of publication bias (p = 0.13).”

Fig. 2
figure 2

Forest plot of overall pooled ORs, pooled with random effects, regarding the association between gestational diabetes mellitus and risk of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plot of adjusted ORs, pooled with random effects, regarding the association between gestational diabetes mellitus and risk of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome

Full size image

Sub-group meta-analysis based on GDM- or NRDS-based datasets

With respect to GDM-based studies, our subgroup meta-analysis, which included 34 eligible datasets covering 47,704 pregnant women with GDM and 1,909,261 without GDM, found NRDS incidence of 9.2% (95% CI, 8.1–10.4%; 1786/47,704) and 3.2% (95% CI, 2.8–3.5%; 21,763/1,909,261), respectively (Table 2). The REM showed a significantly higher incidence of NRDS among pregnant women with GDM (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.5–2.7; I² = 94.6%), suggesting a strong positive association between GDM during pregnancy and the occurrence of NRDS.

In a separate analysis of 16 eligible studies involving 172,418 infants with NRDS and 2,172,136 without NRDS, the pooled prevalence of GDM among their mothers was 10.1% (95% CI, 8.8–11.4%; 5690/172,418) and 5.6% (95% CI, 5.0–6.2%; 53,823/2,172,136), respectively (Table 2). The REM indicated a significantly higher prevalence of GDM in mothers of infants with NRDS (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.3–2.3; I² = 97.8%), further supporting a significant positive association between GDM during pregnancy and the occurrence of NRDS.

Table 2 Sub-group analyses of the pooled odds ratios for the association between gestational diabetes mellitus and neonatal respiratory distress syndrome
Full size table

Sub-group meta-analyses based on characteristics of studies

Subgroup analyses by study design revealed a significant link between GDM and NRDS in prospective case-control studies (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2–2.4), prospective cohort studies (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.6–4.4), and retrospective cohort studies (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4–2.5). When considering gestational age, this association was evident in both term (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1–2.3) and preterm (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.4–2.2) pregnancies. In terms of diagnostic methods, studies utilizing oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4–2.6) and those relying on medical records or ICD codes (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4–2.5) both demonstrated significant associations. This association persisted across all subgroups when stratified by study quality, publication year, country income levels, and WHO regions, with the exception of the Western Pacific region (refer to Table 2). Additionally, two studies assessed the relationship between GDM and the risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in neonates. A REM applied to these studies indicated a significant association between GDM and ARDS (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.5–2.3).

Sensitivity and cumulative analysis

We performed a sensitivity analysis to determine whether the overall pooled effect sizes were influenced by any single study. The analysis revealed that the removal of any individual study did not significantly impact the overall pooled odds ratio (OR), confirming the robustness of our results (Figure S2). Additionally, a cumulative meta-analysis indicated a steadily increasing association that maintained statistical significance as more studies were added over time (Figure S3).

Discussion

This comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis, provides robust evidence supporting a significant positive association between GDM and the development of NRDS. The pooled analysis of 44 studies from 23 countries, encompassing over 2.2 million participants, consistently demonstrated a heightened risk of NRDS in infants born to mothers with GDM, regardless of study design, gestational age, diagnostic method, or geographic location. This finding is consistent with previous evidence and reinforces the importance of recognizing GDM as a critical risk factor for NRDS. Our findings are consistent with a previous meta-analysis [7] which indicated that both GDM (OR, 1.57) and pre-existing diabetes mellitus (pre-GDM) (OR, 2.6) are significantly associated with an increased risk of NRDS. However, our meta-analysis, encompassing a significantly larger number of eligible studies and a sample size approximately three times greater than the previous study, yielded a pooled odds ratio for GDM that was approximately 26% stranger (ORs, 1.9 vs. 1.5). Furthermore, our findings are in line with previous evidence indicating that GDM had adverse effects on pregnancy and neonatal outcomes [61, 62]. Previous research has consistently demonstrated that GDM is associated with a range of adverse maternal and neonatal complications beyond NRDS [61, 63]. For instance, GDM increases the risk of hypertensive disorders, such as preeclampsia, which can lead to premature birth and other complications for both mother and baby [61]. GDM is also linked to an increased risk of cesarean delivery and the future development of type 2 diabetes in the mother [61, 64]. In infants, GDM is associated with macrosomia (large birth weight), birth trauma, preterm birth, and metabolic complications, such as hypoglycemia and hyperbilirubinemia [61, 64].

The underlying mechanisms by which GDM contributes to NRDS are complex and multifaceted, involving a combination of factors related to the hyperglycemic environment in utero [65]. One key mechanism is the delay in lung maturation associated with maternal hyperglycemia [66]. Elevated glucose levels in the fetal circulation can disrupt the normal developmental processes of the lungs, leading to reduced surfactant production. Surfactant, a lipoprotein complex essential for maintaining alveolar stability and preventing collapse, is crucial for proper gas exchange [65]. Insufficient surfactant production in infants born to mothers with GDM can lead to alveolar collapse and the development of NRDS. Additionally, hyperglycemia can also induce oxidative stress and inflammation in the fetal lungs, further contributing to impaired lung development and an increased risk of NRDS [67]. Furthermore, GDM can lead to placental insufficiency, which can restrict oxygen and nutrient delivery to the fetus, further compromising lung development and increasing the susceptibility to NRDS [68, 69]. A deeper understanding of these intricate mechanisms is crucial for developing targeted interventions to mitigate the risk of NRDS in infants born to mothers with GDM.

The strength of this meta-analysis lies in its extensive number of studies, large sample size, and comprehensive search strategy, which includes multiple databases and gray literature, ensuring a thorough and unbiased evaluation of the available evidence. The inclusion of a diverse range of studies, including both GDM-based and NRDS-based designs, strengthens the generalizability of the findings. Furthermore, the rigorous quality assessment using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, with the majority of studies classified as high quality, enhances the reliability of the results. However, this meta-analysis also has notable limitations. Firstly, the reliance on observational studies inherently limits the ability to establish causal relationships. Despite efforts to adjust for potential confounders, residual confounding cannot be entirely ruled out. Key confounding variables, such as maternal BMI, socioeconomic status, and concurrent pregnancy complications, were not consistently accounted for across all included studies, which could influence both the risk of GDM and NRDS. Secondly, substantial heterogeneity was observed among the included studies, likely reflecting variations in study populations, diagnostic criteria, outcome definitions, and regional practices. Although meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to explore the sources of heterogeneity, these methods may not fully resolve the issue, which could impact the reliability and generalizability of the pooled estimates. Thirdly, evidence of publication bias, as suggested by asymmetry in the funnel plots, indicates the possibility that studies reporting stronger associations may have been more likely to be published. This bias could potentially skew the overall results toward a stronger association between GDM and NRDS. Finally, the geographic scope of the analysis was somewhat limited, as no studies from the African region were included, and some WHO regions were underrepresented. This restricts the global applicability of the findings. Given these limitations, the results of this meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution. Future research should aim to include more diverse populations and ensure consistent adjustment for confounders such as maternal BMI and socioeconomic status to strengthen the evidence base.

This comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis provides compelling evidence for a significant positive association between GDM and the risk of NRDS. The robust findings, consistent across diverse study designs and geographic locations, underscore the importance of GDM as a critical risk factor for NRDS development. This highlights the need for early detection and effective management of GDM during pregnancy to reduce adverse neonatal outcomes, particularly NRDS. Our findings support targeted management strategies for GDM during pregnancy to potentially mitigate NRDS risk, especially in high-risk populations. While the meta-analysis provides valuable insights, future research is warranted to further elucidate the mechanisms linking GDM to NRDS. Well-controlled longitudinal cohort studies focusing on diverse populations are particularly needed to address residual confounding and better evaluate causality. Additionally, studies from underrepresented regions, such as Africa, should be prioritized, and strategies to mitigate the impact of heterogeneity and publication bias in future meta-analyses should be explored. By deepening our understanding of the GDM-NRDS relationship and addressing these research gaps, we can implement evidence-based strategies to improve neonatal health and reduce the burden of this serious respiratory condition globally.

Data availability

We included all data in main manuscript and supplementary files. Further data that supports the findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Sivanandan S, Agarwal R, Sethi A. Respiratory distress in term neonates in low-resource settings. In: Seminars in fetal and neonatal medicine: 2017: Elsevier; 2017: 260–6.

  2. Speer CP. Neonatal respiratory distress syndrome: an inflammatory disease? Neonatology. 2011;99(4):316–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tochie JN, Sibetcheu AT, Arrey-Ebot PE, Choukem S-P. Global, Regional and National trends in the Burden of neonatal respiratory failure and essentials of its diagnosis and management from 1992 to 2022: a scoping review. Eur J Pediatrics. 2024;183(1):9–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kumar A, Vishnu Bhat B. Epidemiology of respiratory distress of newborns. Indian J Pediatr. 1996;63:93–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Legesse BT, Abera NM, Alemu TG, Atalell KA. Incidence and predictors of mortality among neonates with respiratory distress syndrome admitted at West Oromia Referral Hospitals, Ethiopia, 2022. Multi-centred institution based retrospective follow-up study. Plos one 2023, 18(8):e0289050.

  6. Condò V, Cipriani S, Colnaghi M, Bellù R, Zanini R, Bulfoni C, Parazzini F, Mosca F. Neonatal respiratory distress syndrome: are risk factors the same in preterm and term infants? J Maternal-Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017;30(11):1267–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Li Y, Wang W, Zhang D. Maternal diabetes mellitus and risk of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis. Acta Diabetol. 2019;56:729–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. McIntyre HD, Catalano P, Zhang C, Desoye G, Mathiesen ER, Damm P. Gestational diabetes mellitus. Nat Reviews Disease Primers. 2019;5(1):47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Johns EC, Denison FC, Norman JE, Reynolds RM. Gestational diabetes mellitus: mechanisms, treatment, and complications. Trends Endocrinol Metabolism. 2018;29(11):743–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Moon JH, Jang HC. Gestational diabetes mellitus: diagnostic approaches and maternal-offspring complications. Diabetes Metabolism J. 2022;46(1):3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Schneider S, Hoeft B, Freerksen N, Fischer B, Roehrig S, Yamamoto S, Maul H. Neonatal complications and risk factors among women with gestational diabetes mellitus. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011;90(3):231–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials revisited. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015;45:139–45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Controlling the risk of spurious findings from meta-regression. Stat Med. 2004;23(11):1663–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Mohammad-Beigi A, Tabatabaee SHR, Yazdani M, Mohammad-salehi N. Gestational diabetes related unpleasant outcomes of pregnancy. Feyz Med Sci J. 2007;11(1):33–8.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gasim T. Gestational diabetes mellitus: maternal and perinatal outcomes in 220 Saudi women. Oman Med J. 2012;27(2):140–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Abdalrahman Almarzouki A. Maternal and neonatal outcome of controlled gestational diabetes mellitus versus high risk group without gestational diabetes mellitus: a comparative study. Med Glas (Zenica). 2013;10(1):70–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kouhkan A, Khamseh ME, Pirjani R, Moini A, Arabipoor A, Maroufizadeh S, Hosseini R, Baradaran HR. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes of singleton pregnancies conceived via assisted reproductive technology complicated by gestational diabetes mellitus: a prospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18(1):495.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Osman T, Keshk EA, Alghamdi MA, Alzahrani FA, Alghamdi AAM, Alzahrani AG, Alzahrani Y, Alghamdi MAA, Alghamdi ASI, Alghamdi AAM. Prevalence of adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with and without gestational diabetes Mellitus in Al-Baha Region, Saudi Arabia. Cureus. 2024;16(1):e52421.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Wróblewska-Seniuk K, Wender-Ożegowska E, Szczapa J, Chojnacka K, Biegańska E, Pietryga M, Biczysko R, Gadzinowski J. Neonatal outcome in newborns of mothers with gestational diabetes. Med Sci Monit. 2004;10(2):102–8.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Fadl HE, Ostlund IK, Magnuson AF, Hanson US. Maternal and neonatal outcomes and time trends of gestational diabetes mellitus in Sweden from 1991 to 2003. Diabet Med. 2010;27(4):436–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Simões T, Queirós A, Correia L, Rocha T, Dias E, Blickstein I. Gestational diabetes mellitus complicating twin pregnancies. J Perinat Med. 2011;39(4):437–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Guillén MA, Herranz L, Barquiel B, Hillman N, Burgos MA, Pallardo LF. Influence of gestational diabetes mellitus on neonatal weight outcome in twin pregnancies. Diabet Med. 2014;31(12):1651–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kovo M, Granot Y, Schreiber L, Divon M, Ben-Haroush A, Bar J. Pregnancy outcome and placental pathology differences in term gestational diabetes with and without hypertensive disorders. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29(9):1462–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mortier I, Blanc J, Tosello B, Gire C, Bretelle F, Carcopino X. Is gestational diabetes an independent risk factor of neonatal severe respiratory distress syndrome after 34 weeks of gestation? A prospective study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;296(6):1071–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Billionnet C, Mitanchez D, Weill A, Nizard J, Alla F, Hartemann A, Jacqueminet S. Gestational diabetes and adverse perinatal outcomes from 716,152 births in France in 2012. Diabetologia. 2017;60(4):636–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Bricelj K, Tul N, Lucovnik M, Kronhauser-Cerar L, Steblovnik L, Verdenik I, Blickstein I. Neonatal respiratory morbidity in late-preterm births in pregnancies with and without gestational diabetes mellitus. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017;30(4):377–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rosen H, Shmueli A, Ashwal E, Hiersch L, Yogev Y, Aviram A. Delivery outcomes of large-for-gestational-age newborns stratified by the presence or absence of gestational diabetes mellitus. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018;141(1):120–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Capobianco G, Gulotta A, Tupponi G, Dessole F, Pola M, Virdis G, Petrillo M, Mais V, Olzai G, Antonucci R et al. Materno-fetal and neonatal complications of diabetes in pregnancy: a retrospective study. J Clin Med 2020, 9(9).

  32. Simeonova-Krstevska S, Velkoska Nakova V, Samardziski I, Atanasova Bosku A, Todorovska I, Sima A, Livrinova V, Jovanovska V, Milkovski D. Perinatal outcome in gestational diabetes melitus vs normoglycemic women. Biomedical J Sci Tech Res (BJSTR). 2020;26(2):19882–8.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Preda A, Pădureanu V, Moța M, Ștefan AG, Comănescu AC, Radu L, Mazilu ER, Vladu IM. Analysis of maternal and neonatal complications in a group of patients with gestational diabetes Mellitus. Med (Kaunas) 2021, 57(11).

  34. Monteiro SS, Fonseca L, Santos TS, Saraiva M, Pereira T, Vilaverde J, Pichel F, Pinto C, Dores J. Gestational diabetes in twin pregnancy: a predictor of adverse fetomaternal outcomes? Acta Diabetol. 2022;59(6):811–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Myszkowski B, Stawska A, Glogiewicz M, Sekielska-Domanowska MI, Wisniewska-Cymbaluk S, Adamczak R, Lach J, Cnota W, Dubiel M. Influence of gestational diabetes in twin pregnancy on the condition of newborns and early neonatal complications. Ginekol Pol. 2023;94(2):129–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Karkia R, Giacchino T, Shah S, Gough A, Ramadan G, Akolekar R. Gestational diabetes Mellitus: Association with maternal and neonatal complications. Med (Kaunas) 2023, 59(12).

  37. Freitas ICS, Hintz MC, Orth LC, Rosa TGD, Iser BM, Psendziuk C. Comparison of maternal and fetal outcomes in parturients with and without a diagnosis of gestational diabetes. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2019;41(11):647–53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Violante-Ortíz R, Fernández-Ordóñez NL, Requena-Rivera CA, Mojarro-Bazán SS, Alemán-Cabrera T. [Maternal-fetal outcomes in women with gestational diabetes in an intensive control program]. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 2023;61(1):61–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Rauh-Hain JA, Rana S, Tamez H, Wang A, Cohen B, Cohen A, Brown F, Ecker JL, Karumanchi SA, Thadhani R. Risk for developing gestational diabetes in women with twin pregnancies. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2009;22(4):293–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Boghossian NS, Yeung E, Albert PS, Mendola P, Laughon SK, Hinkle SN, Zhang C. Changes in diabetes status between pregnancies and impact on subsequent newborn outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(5):e431431–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kawakita T, Bowers K, Hazrati S, Zhang C, Grewal J, Chen Z, Sun L, Grantz KL. Increased neonatal respiratory morbidity Associated with gestational and pregestational diabetes: a retrospective study. Am J Perinatol. 2017;34(11):1160–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Werner EF, Romano ME, Rouse DJ, Sandoval G, Gyamfi-Bannerman C, Blackwell SC, Tita ATN, Reddy UM, Jain L, Saade GR, et al. Association of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus with neonatal respiratory morbidity. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133(2):349–53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Battarbee AN, Venkatesh KK, Aliaga S, Boggess KA. The association of pregestational and gestational diabetes with severe neonatal morbidity and mortality. J Perinatol. 2020;40(2):232–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Wahi P, Dogra V, Jandial K, Bhagat R, Gupta R, Gupta S, Wakhloo A, Singh J. Prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and its outcomes in Jammu region. J Assoc Physicians India. 2011;59:227–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Mannan M, Rahman M, Ara I, Afroz H. Prevalence and pregnancy outcome of gestational diabetes Mellitus among Bangladeshi urban pregnant women. J Med 2012, 13(2).

  46. Naher N, Chowdhury T, Begum R. Maternal and fetal outcome in patients with Pregestational Diabetes Mellitus and Gestational Diabetes Mellitus and their comparison with non-diabetic pregnancy. BIRDEM Med J. 2015;5(1):9–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Kumari R, Dalal V, Kachhawa G, Sahoo I, Khadgawat R, Mahey R, Kulshrestha V, Vanamail P, Sharma J, Bhatla N. Maternal and perinatal outcome in gestational diabetes mellitus in a tertiary care hospital in Delhi. Indian J Endocrinol Metabol. 2018;22(1):116–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Naik RR, Pednekar G, Cacodcar J. Analysis of outcomes in neonates of mothers with gestational diabetes mellitus at a tertiary care hospital in Goa.

  49. MODAK R, MONDAL S, PAL A, BISWAS DK. Screening and re-screening of gestational diabetes Mellitus at 24–28 weeks and 32–34 weeks of Gestation and evaluation of foetal maternal outcome: a longitudinal study. J Clin Diagn Res 2023, 17(7).

  50. Negara CK, GESTATIONAL DIABETES MELLITUS AND BIRTH WEIGHT WITH RESPIRATORY DISTRESS SYNDROME (RDS) IN NEONATES. J HEALTH. 2024;3(1):41–8.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Stone CA, McLachlan KA, Halliday JL, Wein P, Tippett C. Gestational diabetes in Victoria in 1996: incidence, risk factors and outcomes. Med J Aust. 2002;177(9):486–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Liu J, Yang N, Liu Y. High-risk factors of respiratory distress syndrome in term neonates: a retrospective case-control study. Balkan Med J. 2014;31(1):64–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Feng R, Liu L, Zhang YY, Yuan ZS, Gao L, Zuo CT. Unsatisfactory glucose management and adverse pregnancy outcomes of gestational diabetes Mellitus in the Real World of Clinical Practice: a retrospective study. Chin Med J (Engl). 2018;131(9):1079–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Ye W, Zhang T, Shu Y, Fang C, Xie L, Peng K, Liu C. The influence factors of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome in Southern China: a case-control study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020;33(10):1678–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Kim JH, Lee SM, Lee YH. Risk factors for respiratory distress syndrome in full-term neonates. Yeungnam Univ J Med. 2018;35(2):187–91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Xi G, Ying Q, Wang X, Luo F, Lu C, Yang Y, Wang J. Well-managed gestational diabetes mellitus may not increase the risk for neonatal respiratory symptoms—a case-control study. 2020.

  57. Lin YW, Lin MH, Pai LW, Fang JW, Mou CH, Sung FC, Tzeng YL. Population-based study on birth outcomes among women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and gestational diabetes mellitus. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):17391.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Harrison J, Melov S, Kirby AC, Athayde N, Boghossian A, Cheung W, Inglis E, Maravar K, Padmanabhan S, Luig M, et al. Pregnancy outcomes in women with gestational diabetes mellitus by models of care: a retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open. 2022;12(9):e065063.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Kim Y, Hong SY, Kim SY, Kim YM, Sung JH, Choi SJ, Oh SY, Roh CR. Obstetric and neonatal outcomes of gestational diabetes mellitus in twin pregnancies according to changes in its diagnostic criteria from National Diabetes Data Group criteria to Carpenter and Coustan criteria: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022;22(1):9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Zhang CH, Zhang PL. Adverse perinatal outcomes complicated with gestational diabetes mellitus in preterm mothers and preterm infants. Exp Ther Med. 2023;26(3):425.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Ye W, Luo C, Huang J, Li C, Liu Z, Liu F. Gestational diabetes mellitus and adverse pregnancy outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2022, 377.

  62. Yogev Y, Visser GH. Obesity, gestational diabetes and pregnancy outcome. Seminars in fetal and neonatal medicine: 2009. Elsevier; 2009. pp. 77–84.

  63. Prakash GT, Das AK, Habeebullah S, Bhat V, Shamanna SB. Maternal and neonatal outcome in mothers with gestational diabetes mellitus. Indian J Endocrinol Metabol. 2017;21(6):854–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Farooq M, Ayaz A, Bahoo LA, Ahmad I. Maternal and neonatal outcomes in gestational diabetes mellitus. Int J Endocrinol Metabolism. 2007;5(3):109–15.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Yildiz Atar H, Baatz JE, Ryan RM. Molecular mechanisms of maternal diabetes effects on fetal and neonatal surfactant. Children. 2021;8(4):281.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Ylinen K. High maternal levels of hemoglobin A1c associated with delayed fetal lung maturation in insulin-dependent diabetic pregnancies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1987;66(3):263–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Saucedo R, Ortega-Camarillo C, Ferreira-Hermosillo A, Díaz-Velázquez MF, Meixueiro-Calderón C, Valencia-Ortega J. Role of oxidative stress and inflammation in gestational diabetes mellitus. Antioxidants. 2023;12(10):1812.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Fasoulakis Z, Koutras A, Antsaklis P, Theodora M, Valsamaki A, Daskalakis G, Kontomanolis EN. Intrauterine growth restriction due to gestational diabetes: from pathophysiology to diagnosis and management. Medicina. 2023;59(6):1139.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Amabebe E, Ikumi N, Pillay K, Matjila M, Anumba D. Maternal obesity-related placental dysfunction: from peri-conception to late gestation. Placenta Reproductive Med. 2023;2.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank kind supports of Research Committee of the Dingxi People’s Hospital during the preparation of the manuscript. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their role in improving our manuscript.

Funding

There is no special funding for. The corresponding author had full access to all study data and final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics, Jinan Maternal and Child Health Hospital, Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, 250000, China

    Fang Yang

  2. Emergency Internal Medicine, Binzhou Medical College Yantai Affiliated Hospital, Mouping District, Yantai, Shandong, 264000, China

    Hua Liu

  3. Department of Obstetrics, Dingxi People’s Hospital, Dingxi, Gansu, 743000, China

    Cuixia Ding

Authors
  1. Fang Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hua Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cuixia Ding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Cuixia Ding conceived and designed this study. Fang Yang and Hua Liu searched databases and collected data from included studies. Fang Yang and Hua Liu performed the statistical analyses. Fang Yang and Cuixia Ding wrote, revised and confirmed the original draft of the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final version before submission. Two first authors are equally contributed in this study.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cuixia Ding.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, F., Liu, H. & Ding, C. Gestational diabetes mellitus and risk of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetol Metab Syndr 16, 294 (2024). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s13098-024-01539-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s13098-024-01539-x

Keywords

Diabetology & Metabolic Syndrome

ISSN: 1758-5996

Contact us