Panacea Index Logo

Command Palette

Search for a command to run...

A randomized controlled trial investigating the effects of a low-glycemic index diet on pregnancy outcomes in gestational diabetes mellitus.

Diabetes care
November 1, 2011
Jimmy Chun Yu Louie et al. (7 authors)
Journal ArticleRandomized Controlled TrialResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tHuman StudyClinical
Study Details

Study Goal

The researchers aimed to compare the effects of a low-glycemic index (LGI) diet versus a conventional high-fiber diet on pregnancy outcomes, neonatal anthropometry, and maternal metabolic profile in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).

Results Summary

The LGI diet resulted in a modestly lower glycemic index compared to the high-fiber diet, but there were no significant differences in birth weight, macrosomia prevalence, insulin treatment, or adverse pregnancy outcomes between the two groups. Both diets produced similar pregnancy outcomes in intensively monitored women with GDM.

Population

Women aged 26-42 years with GDM diagnosed at 20-32 weeks' gestation (mean prepregnancy BMI 24 ± 5 kg/m²).

Effective Dosage

Target glycemic index ~50 for LGI diet, ~60 for high-fiber diet.

Duration

From diagnosis (20-32 weeks' gestation) until birth.

Interactions

None mentioned

Extracted Claims (8)
InterventionDirectionEndpointPopulationDosageImpactClaim #
low-glycemic index (LGI) diet
decrease
glycemic index (GI)
women diagnosed with GDM
47 ± 1 vs. 53 ± 1
achieved a modestly lower GI than the HF group
#1
low-glycemic index (LGI) diet
no change
birth weight
women diagnosed with GDM
3.3 ± 0.1 kg vs. 3.3 ± 0.1 kg
no significant difference
#2
low-glycemic index (LGI) diet
no change
birth weight centile
women diagnosed with GDM
52.5 ± 4.3 vs. 52.2 ± 4.0
no significant difference
#3
low-glycemic index (LGI) diet
no change
prevalence of macrosomia
women diagnosed with GDM
2.1% vs. 6.7%
no significant difference
#4
low-glycemic index (LGI) diet
no change
insulin treatment
women diagnosed with GDM
53% vs. 65%
no significant difference
#5
low-glycemic index (LGI) diet
no change
adverse pregnancy outcomes
women diagnosed with GDM
-
no significant difference
#6
low-glycemic index (LGI) diet
no change
pregnancy outcomes
intensively monitored women with GDM
-
produce similar pregnancy outcomes
#7
conventional high-fiber moderate-GI diet (HF)
no change
pregnancy outcomes
intensively monitored women with GDM
-
produce similar pregnancy outcomes
#8
Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is rising. There is little evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of one dietary therapy over another. We aimed to investigate the effect of a low-glycemic index (LGI) versus a conventional high-fiber diet on pregnancy outcomes, neonatal anthropometry, and maternal metabolic profile in GDM. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Ninety-nine women (age 26-42 years; mean ± SD prepregnancy BMI 24 ± 5 kg/m²) diagnosed with GDM at 20-32 weeks' gestation were randomized to follow either an LGI (n = 50; target glycemic index [GI] ~50) or a high-fiber moderate-GI diet (HF) (n = 49; target GI ~60). Dietary intake was assessed by 3-day food records. Pregnancy outcomes were collected from medical records. RESULTS: The LGI group achieved a modestly lower GI than the HF group (mean ± SEM 47 ± 1 vs. 53 ± 1; P < 0.001). At birth, there was no significant difference in birth weight (LGI 3.3 ± 0.1 kg vs. HF 3.3 ± 0.1 kg; P = 0.619), birth weight centile (LGI 52.5 ± 4.3 vs. HF 52.2 ± 4.0; P = 0.969), prevalence of macrosomia (LGI 2.1% vs. HF 6.7%; P = 0.157), insulin treatment (LGI 53% vs. HF 65%; P = 0.251), or adverse pregnancy outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In intensively monitored women with GDM, an LGI diet and a conventional HF diet produce similar pregnancy outcomes.

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)
AdultBirth WeightBlood GlucoseBody Mass IndexDiabetes, GestationalDietDietary FiberFemaleGestational AgeGlycemic IndexHumansPatient CompliancePregnancyPregnancy OutcomeTreatment Outcome
Study Links
Quality Scores
Safety85
Efficacy65/10
Quality80/10
Citation Metrics
Total Citations96
Citations/Year6.9
Relative Citation Ratio3.47
NIH Percentile87.8%
Research Impact Scores
APT Score0.95
Weight Score1.49
Normalized Score0.76
Related Supplements