MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4360915417 · doi:10.4103/cjrm.cjrm_40_22

Systematic review of the use of metformin compared to insulin for the management of gestational diabetes: Implications for low-resource settings

2023· review· en· W4360915417 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Len Kelly, Ribal Kattini, Ruben Hummelen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Rural Medicine · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsNOSM University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGestational diabetesMetforminContext (archaeology)PregnancyGlycemicDiabetes mellitusInsulinRandomized controlled trialType 2 diabetesObstetricsInternal medicinePediatricsGestationEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: This systematic review examines the effectiveness of metformin treatment compared to insulin treatment for gestational diabetes within the context of a low-resource environment. Methods: Electronic data searches of Medline, EMBASE, Scopus and Google scholar databases from 1 January, 2005 to 30 June, 2021 were performed using medical subject headings: 'gestational diabetes or pregnancy diabetes mellitus' AND 'Pregnancy or pregnancy outcomes' AND 'Insulin' AND 'Metformin Hydrochloride Drug Combination/or Metformin/or Hypoglycemic Agents' AND 'Glycemic control or blood glucose'. Randomized controlled trials were included if: participants were pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM); the interventions were metformin and/or insulin. Studies among women with pre-gestational diabetes, non-randomised control trials or studies with a limited description of the methodology were excluded. Outcomes included adverse maternal outcomes: weight gain, C-section, pre-eclampsia and glycaemic control and adverse neonatal outcomes: birth weight, macrosomia, pre-term birth and neonatal hypoglycaemia. The revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment for randomised trials was used for the evaluation of bias. Results: We screened 164 abstracts and 36 full-text articles. Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies provide moderate to high-quality evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of metformin as an alternative therapy to insulin. Risk of bias was low; multiple countries and robust sample sizes improved external validity. All studies were from urban centres with no rural data. Conclusion: These recent high quality studies comparing metformin to insulin for the treatment of GDM generally found either improved or equivalent pregnancy outcome and good glycaemic control for most patients, although many required insulin supplementation. Its ease of use, safety and efficacy suggest metformin may simplify the management of gestational diabetes, particularly in rural and other low-resource environments.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Rural MedicineSame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207