Additional file 1 of Maternal and neonatal outcomes with the use of long acting, compared to intermediate acting basal insulin (NPH) for managing diabetes during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additional file 1: Table S1. Search strategy for identification of studies to be included in the review. Table S2. Certainty of pooled estimates assessed using GRADE criteria. Table S3. Author’s judgements about study quality using the adapted Ottawa-Newcastle Risk of Bias Assessment tool. Figure S1. Risk of bias summary: review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item for each included randomised controlled study. Figure S2. Risk of bias graph: review authors’ judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included randomised controlled studies. Figure S3. Funnel plot for maternal hypoglycaemia as an outcome of interest in women with gestational diabetes receiving long-acting insulin analogues (glargine and/or detemir), compared to intermediate acting neutral protamine Hagedron. Figure S4. Funnel plot for caesarean delivery as an outcome of interest in women with gestational diabetes receiving long-acting insulin analogues (glargine and/or detemir), compared to intermediate acting neutral protamine Hagedron. Figure S5. Funnel plot for hypertensive disorder as an outcome of interest in women with gestational diabetes receiving long-acting insulin analogues (glargine and/or detemir), compared to intermediate acting neutral protamine Hagedron. Figure S6. Maternal outcomes in women with gestational diabetes receiving glargine, compared to intermediate acting neutral protamine Hagedron. Figure S7. Maternal gestational weight gain (Kg) and glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c, %) in women with gestational diabetes receiving glargine, compared to intermediate acting neutral protamine Hagedron. Figure S8. Maternal outcomes in women with gestational diabetes receiving detemir, compared to intermediate acting neutral protamine Hagedron. Figure S9. Maternal gestational weight gain (Kg) and glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c, %) in women with gestational diabetes receiving detemir, compared to intermediate acting neutral protamine Hagedron. Figure S10. Funnel plot for preterm birth as an outcome of interest in women with gestational diabetes receiving long-acting insulin analogues (glargine and/or detemir), compared to intermediate acting neutral protamine Hagedron. Figure S11. Funnel plot for large for gestational age as an outcome of interest in women with gestational diabetes receiving long-acting insulin analogues (glargine and/or detemir), compared to intermediate acting neutral protamine Hagedron. Figure S12. Funnel plot for small for gestational age as an outcome of interest in women with gestational diabetes receiving long-acting insulin analogues (glargine and/or detemir), compared to intermediate acting neutral protamine Hagedron. Figure S13. Funnel plot for congenital malformation as an outcome of interest in women with gestational diabetes receiving long-acting insulin analogues (glargine and/or detemir), compared to intermediate acting neutral protamine Hagedron. Figure S14. Funnel plot for perinatal mortality as an outcome of interest in women with gestational diabetes receiving long-acting insulin analogues (glargine and/or detemir), compared to intermediate acting neutral protamine Hagedron. Figure S15. Funnel plot for admission to NICU as an outcome of interest in women with gestational diabetes receiving long-acting insulin analogues (glargine and/or detemir), compared to intermediate acting neutral protamine Hagedron. Figure S16. Funnel plot for neonatal hypoglycaemia as an outcome of interest in women with gestational diabetes receiving long-acting insulin analogues (glargine and/or detemir), compared to intermediate acting neutral protamine Hagedron. Figure S17. Funnel plot for APGAR score less than 7 as an outcome of interest in women with gestational diabetes receiving long-acting insulin analogues (glargine and/or detemir), compared to intermediate acting neutral protamine Hagedron. Figure S18. Funnel plot for neonatal hyperbilirubinemia as an outcome of interest in women with gestational diabetes receiving long-acting insulin analogues (glargine and/or detemir), compared to intermediate acting neutral protamine Hagedron. Figure S19. Neonatal outcomes in women with gestational diabetes receiving glargine, compared to intermediate acting neutral protamine Hagedron. Figure S20. Neonatal outcomes (continued) in women with gestational diabetes receiving glargine, compared to intermediate acting neutral protamine Hagedron. Figure S21. Gestational age (in weeks) and birth weight (in grams) in new-borns with mother having gestational diabetes and receiving glargine, compared to intermediate acting neutral protamine Hagedron. Figure S22. Neonatal outcomes in women with gestational diabetes receiving detemir, compared to intermediate acting neutral protamine Hagedron. Figure S23. Neonatal outcomes (continued) in women with gestational diabetes receiving detemir, compared to intermediate acting neutral protamine Hagedron. Figure S24. Gestational age (in weeks) and birth weight (in grams) in new-borns with mother having gestational diabetes and receiving detemir, compared to intermediate acting neutral protamine Hagedron.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.758 | 0.027 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".