Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of pre-pregnancy care for women with diabetes for improving maternal and perinatal outcomes
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Pre-gestational diabetes mellitus is associated with increased risk of maternal and perinatal adverse outcomes. This systematic review was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of pre-conception care (PCC) in improving maternal and perinatal outcomes. METHODS: Databases from MEDLINE, EMBASE, WEB OF SCIENCE, and Cochrane Library were searched, including the CENTRAL register of controlled trials, and CINHAL up until March 2019, without any language restrictions, for any pre-pregnancy care aiming at health promotion, glycemic control, and screening and treatment of diabetes complications in women with type I or type II pre-gestational diabetes. Trials and observational studies were included in the review. Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Cochrane collaboration methodology for data synthesis and analysis were used, along with the GRADE tool to evaluate the body of evidence. RESULTS: The search identified 8500 potentially relevant citations of which 40 reports of 36 studies were included. The meta-analysis results show that PCC reduced congenital malformations risk by 71%, (Risk ratio (RR) 0.29; 95% CI: 0.21-0.40, 25 studies; 5903 women; high-certainty evidence). The results also show that PCC may lower HbA1c in the first trimester of pregnancy by an average of 1.27% (Mean difference (MD) 1.27; 95% CI: 1.33-1.22; 4927 women; 24 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). Furthermore, the results suggest that PCC may lead to a slight reduction in the risk of preterm delivery of 15%, (RR 0.85; 95% CI: 0.73-0.99; nine studies, 2414 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Moreover, PCC may result in risk reduction of perinatal mortality by 54%, (RR 0.46; 95% CI: 0.30-0.73; ten studies; 3071 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There is uncertainty about the effects of PCC on the early booking for antenatal care (MD 1.31; 95% CI: 1.40-1.23; five studies, 1081 women; very low-certainty evidence) and maternal hypoglycemia in the first trimester, (RR 1.38; 95% CI: 1.07-1.79; three studies; 686 women; very low- certainty evidence). In addition, results of the meta-analysis indicate that PCC may lead to 48% reduction in the risk of small for gestational age (SGA) (RR 0.52; 95% CI: 0.37-0.75; six studies, 2261 women; moderate-certainty evidence). PCC may reduce the risk of neonatal admission to intensive care unit (NICU) by 25% (RR 0.75; 95% CI: 0.67-0.84; four studies; 1322 women; moderate-certainty evidence). However, PCC may have little or no effect in reducing the cesarean section rate (RR 1.02; 95% CI: 0.96-1.07; 14 studies; 3641 women; low-certainty evidence); miscarriage rate (RR 0.86; 95% CI: 0.70-1.06; 11 studies; 2698 women; low-certainty evidence); macrosomia rate (RR 1.06; 95% CI: 0.97-1.15; nine studies; 2787 women, low-certainty evidence); neonatal hypoglycemia (RR 0.93; 95% CI: 0.74-1.18; five studies; 880 women; low-certainty evidence); respiratory distress syndrome (RR 0.78; 95% CI: 0.47-1.29; four studies; 466 women; very low-certainty evidence); or shoulder dystocia (RR 0.28; 95% CI: 0.07-1.12; 2 studies; 530 women; very low-certainty evidence). CONCLUSION: PCC for women with pre-gestational type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus is effective in improving rates of congenital malformations. In addition, it may improve the risk of preterm delivery and admission to NICU. PCC probably reduces maternal HbA1C in the first trimester of pregnancy, perinatal mortality and SGA. There is uncertainty regarding the effects of PCC on early booking for antenatal care or maternal hypoglycemia during the first trimester of pregnancy. PCC has little or no effect on other maternal and perinatal outcomes.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».