MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3163027721 · doi:10.26685/urncst.218

Effect of mHealth on Blood Glucose Control in Pregnancies Complicated by Diabetes: A Systematic Review

2021· review· en· W3163027721 on OpenAlexaff
Taylor Ricci, Husain Akbar

Bibliographic record

VenueUndergraduate Research in Natural and Clinical Science and Technology (URNCST) Journal · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGestational diabetesRandomized controlled trialDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetesPregnancyCochrane LibraryChecklistPsychological interventionResearch designObstetricsPediatricsInternal medicineGestationEndocrinologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: For women with diabetes, optimizing blood glucose is critical during pregnancy to reduce the risk of complications. Mobile health interventions contribute to improved blood glucose control among non-pregnant adults with diabetes, but their effect during pregnancy is not known. Methods: We conducted a systematic review to determine the effect of mobile health interventions on blood glucose control among women with type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, and gestational diabetes mellitus during pregnancy. We searched the databases Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to August 2020. We did not apply limitations to our search. We also examined grey literature and reviewed the reference lists of relevant articles. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they used a randomized controlled trial to determine the effect of mobile health on blood glucose control among women with type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, or gestational diabetes mellitus during pregnancy. A modified version of the Cochrane Randomized Control Trial data collection form and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist guided data collection. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the risk of bias and certainty of the evidence, respectively. Cochrane guidelines for Synthesis Without Meta-analysis informed data analysis. Results: We included four randomized controlled trials on the effect of mobile health as compared to usual care on blood glucose control among women with gestational diabetes mellitus. Discussion: Only one of the four trials reported a positive effect direction, while the remaining studies reported negative or conflicting/unclear effects. The certainty of the evidence was low. Conclusion: Mobile health may have little to no effect on blood glucose control among women with gestational diabetes mellitus. Our synthesis revealed non-significant results and the certainty of evidence was low. However, as there is a current scarcity of randomized controlled trials, future studies are warranted to explore this topic, particularly given the emphasis on virtual healthcare as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.009
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.410 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUndergraduate Research in Natural and Clinical Science and Technology (URNCST) Journal→Same topicGestational Diabetes Research and Management→French-language works237,207→