MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3149312422 · doi:10.3389/fendo.2021.640004

The Effect of Mild Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Treatment on Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021· review· en· W3149312422 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Samira Behboudi‐Gandevani, Razieh Bidhendi Yarandi, Mohammad Hossein Panahi, Mojtaba Vaismoradi

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Endocrinology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGestational diabetesMeta-analysisObstetricsPregnancyOdds ratioShoulder dystociaPreeclampsiaGestationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: It is uncertain whether the treatment of mild gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) improves pregnancy outcomes. The aim of this systemic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of mild GDM treatment on adverse pregnancy outcomes. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted on the databases of PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar to retrieve studies that compared interventions for the treatment of mild GDM with usual antenatal care. The fixed/random effects models were used for the analysis of heterogeneous and non-heterogeneous results. Publication bias was assessed using the Harbord test. Also, the DerSimonian and Laird, and inverse variance methods were used to calculate the pooled odds ratio of events. The quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the Modified Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment scale and the CONSORT checklist. In addition, the risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. Results: The systematic review and meta-analysis involved ten studies consisting of 3317 pregnant women who received treatment for mild GDM and 4407 untreated counterparts. Accordingly, the treatment of mild GDM significantly reduced the risk of macrosomia (OR = 0.3; 95%CI = 0.3-0.4), large for gestational age (OR = 0.4; 95%CI = 0.3-0.5), shoulder dystocia (OR = 0.3; 95%CI = 0.2-0.6), caesarean-section (OR = 0.8; 95%CI = 0.7-0.9), preeclampsia (OR = 0.4; 95%CI = 0.3-0.6), elevated cord C-peptide (OR = 0.7; 95%CI = 0.6-0.9), and respiratory distress syndrome (OR = 0.7; 95%CI = 0.5-0.9) compared to untreated counterparts. Moreover, the risk of induced labor significantly increased in the treated group compared to the untreated group (OR = 1.3; 95%CI = 1.0-1.6). However, no statistically significant difference was observed between the groups in terms of small for gestational age, hypoglycemia, hyperbilirubinemia, birth trauma, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit, and preterm birth. Sensitivity analysis based on the exclusion of secondary analysis data was all highly consistent with the main data analysis. Conclusion: Treatment of mild GDM reduced the risk of selected important maternal outcomes including preeclampsia, macrosomia, large for gestational age, cesarean section, and shoulder dystocia without increasing the risk of small for gestational age. Nevertheless, the treatment could not reduce the risk of neonatal metabolic abnormalities or several complications in newborn.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.522
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in EndocrinologySame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207