Abstract
Objective: The aim of the paper is to discuss how a pragmatic definition could change our conception of diagnosis, using gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) as an example.Study Design: We review the diagnostic controversy that followed an observational study showing a linear relationship between maternal glycaemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes and the resolution proposed 15 years later by a recent pragmatic trial comparing two screening approaches (one- vs two-step) with different diagnostic thresholds.Results: The pragmatic trial involved approximately 24,000 women. The one-step screening strategy using lower GDM thresholds diagnosed twice as many women with GDM, but pregnancy outcomes were not different. We examine how the pragmatic approach integrates research into practice and defines the meaning of a diagnosis according to patient outcomes. The approach is ethically and scientifically sound as compared to the previous methodology, where observational research separated from care gave a theoretical definition of GDM that may have misled medical practice for two decades.Conclusion: Pragmatic research integrated into practice can revolutionize our conception of medical diagnosis in the best medical interest of patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]