It was a sarcastic comment. Unfortunately, nobody takes GDM seriously.Doctor Steuss wrote: ↑Thu Oct 20, 2022 8:41 pmGreat googely-moogely dude. Something being common doesn't mean it should be ignored. If anything, a high prevalence would be increased reason to take it seriously. You take some really strange positions.
I'm not sure if it's controlling for decreased total pregnancies, I'll check the references later.Doctor Steuss wrote: ↑Thu Oct 20, 2022 8:41 pmIs the increased median age of first pregnancy medically significant when overlaid with historical mean age for final pregnancy, while controlling for decreased total pregnancies, and births?Doctor Steuss wrote: ↑Thu Oct 20, 2022 8:41 pmOr women having babies after age 30 when they are less likely to be physically active and more likely to be overweight.
"The worldwide increase in the prevalence of GDM can be partially explained by increased obesity rates and rising maternal age among childbearing women observed in high- and middle-income countries [11,12,13]."
https://bmcpregnancychildbirth.biomedce ... 22-04420-9
This meta-analysis about Type 1 does control for the decrease in total pregnancies.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19875616/