单胎妊娠中根据超声胎儿生长情况进行妊娠糖尿病管理与严格血糖治疗的比较:临床试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research Pub Date : 2024-08-25 DOI:10.1111/jog.16059
Ana M. Fernández-Alonso, Angélica Monterrosa-Blanco, Álvaro Monterrosa-Castro, Faustino R. Pérez-López
{"title":"单胎妊娠中根据超声胎儿生长情况进行妊娠糖尿病管理与严格血糖治疗的比较:临床试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Ana M. Fernández-Alonso,&nbsp;Angélica Monterrosa-Blanco,&nbsp;Álvaro Monterrosa-Castro,&nbsp;Faustino R. Pérez-López","doi":"10.1111/jog.16059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate obstetric outcomes in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) patients treated with flexible management based on intrauterine ultrasound fetal growth (FMIUFG) or strict maternal glycemic adjustment (SMGA).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We performed a comprehensive systematic review of electronic databases for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing obstetrics outcomes of singleton GDM patients managed according to FMIUFG or SMGA. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD497888). Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and LILACS. Primary outcomes were gestational age at delivery and birth weight. Random-effect model meta-analyses were used to minimize the effects of uncertainty associated with inter-study variability. Results are reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) or as odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity between studies was estimated using the <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> statistic. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Scale was used to assess the quality of studies. There were five RCTs with low to moderate risk of bias, including 450 patients managed according to the FMIUFSG and 381 according to the SMGA.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The macrosomia (birthweight &gt;4000 g) rate was lower in pregnancies managed according to FMIUFG than SMGA adjustments (OR: 0.34; 95%CI: 0.16, 0.71). There were no significant differences in hypertensive disorder, cesarean section, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and large newborn for gestational age rates.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The macrosomia rate was lower in women managed with the FMIUFG. There were no significant differences in other obstetric and neonate outcomes.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16593,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jog.16059","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gestational diabetes mellitus management according to ultrasound fetal growth versus strict glycemic treatment in singleton pregnancies: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials\",\"authors\":\"Ana M. Fernández-Alonso,&nbsp;Angélica Monterrosa-Blanco,&nbsp;Álvaro Monterrosa-Castro,&nbsp;Faustino R. Pérez-López\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jog.16059\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aim</h3>\\n \\n <p>The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate obstetric outcomes in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) patients treated with flexible management based on intrauterine ultrasound fetal growth (FMIUFG) or strict maternal glycemic adjustment (SMGA).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We performed a comprehensive systematic review of electronic databases for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing obstetrics outcomes of singleton GDM patients managed according to FMIUFG or SMGA. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD497888). Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and LILACS. Primary outcomes were gestational age at delivery and birth weight. Random-effect model meta-analyses were used to minimize the effects of uncertainty associated with inter-study variability. Results are reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) or as odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity between studies was estimated using the <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> statistic. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Scale was used to assess the quality of studies. There were five RCTs with low to moderate risk of bias, including 450 patients managed according to the FMIUFSG and 381 according to the SMGA.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>The macrosomia (birthweight &gt;4000 g) rate was lower in pregnancies managed according to FMIUFG than SMGA adjustments (OR: 0.34; 95%CI: 0.16, 0.71). There were no significant differences in hypertensive disorder, cesarean section, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and large newborn for gestational age rates.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>The macrosomia rate was lower in women managed with the FMIUFG. There were no significant differences in other obstetric and neonate outcomes.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16593,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jog.16059\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jog.16059\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jog.16059","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本荟萃分析旨在评估妊娠期糖尿病(GDM)患者在接受基于宫内超声胎儿生长的灵活管理(FMIUFG)或严格的孕产妇血糖调整(SMGA)治疗后的产科结果:我们对电子数据库中的随机临床试验(RCT)进行了全面的系统性回顾,比较了根据宫内超声胎儿生长(FMIUFG)或严格孕产妇血糖调整(SMGA)管理的单胎 GDM 患者的产科预后。综述方案已在 PROSPERO(CRD497888)上注册。在 PubMed、Embase、Cochrane 和 LILACS 中进行了检索。主要结果为分娩时的胎龄和出生体重。采用随机效应模型进行荟萃分析,以尽量减少与研究间差异相关的不确定性的影响。结果以标准化平均差(SMD)或几率比(OR)及其 95% 置信区间(CI)的形式报告。研究之间的异质性采用 I2 统计量进行估计。科克伦偏倚风险量表用于评估研究质量。其中有五项研究存在低至中度偏倚风险,包括450名按照FMIUFSG管理的患者和381名按照SMGA管理的患者:按照FMIUFSG管理的孕妇的巨大儿(出生体重大于4000克)率低于按照SMGA调整的孕妇(OR:0.34;95%CI:0.16,0.71)。在高血压疾病、剖宫产、新生儿重症监护室入院和大胎龄新生儿率方面没有明显差异:结论:使用新生儿和婴幼儿疾病综合管理方法的产妇的巨大儿发生率较低。结论:采用 FMIUFG 管理的产妇的巨大儿发生率较低,其他产科和新生儿结果没有明显差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Gestational diabetes mellitus management according to ultrasound fetal growth versus strict glycemic treatment in singleton pregnancies: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

Aim

The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate obstetric outcomes in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) patients treated with flexible management based on intrauterine ultrasound fetal growth (FMIUFG) or strict maternal glycemic adjustment (SMGA).

Methods

We performed a comprehensive systematic review of electronic databases for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing obstetrics outcomes of singleton GDM patients managed according to FMIUFG or SMGA. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD497888). Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and LILACS. Primary outcomes were gestational age at delivery and birth weight. Random-effect model meta-analyses were used to minimize the effects of uncertainty associated with inter-study variability. Results are reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) or as odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity between studies was estimated using the I2 statistic. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Scale was used to assess the quality of studies. There were five RCTs with low to moderate risk of bias, including 450 patients managed according to the FMIUFSG and 381 according to the SMGA.

Results

The macrosomia (birthweight >4000 g) rate was lower in pregnancies managed according to FMIUFG than SMGA adjustments (OR: 0.34; 95%CI: 0.16, 0.71). There were no significant differences in hypertensive disorder, cesarean section, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and large newborn for gestational age rates.

Conclusions

The macrosomia rate was lower in women managed with the FMIUFG. There were no significant differences in other obstetric and neonate outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
376
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research is the official Journal of the Asia and Oceania Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology and of the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and aims to provide a medium for the publication of articles in the fields of obstetrics and gynecology. The Journal publishes original research articles, case reports, review articles and letters to the editor. The Journal will give publication priority to original research articles over case reports. Accepted papers become the exclusive licence of the Journal. Manuscripts are peer reviewed by at least two referees and/or Associate Editors expert in the field of the submitted paper.
期刊最新文献
Association of maternal 25(OH)D levels during pregnancy with fetal birth weight and preschooler growth status: A retrospective birth cohort study. Comparison of outcomes of labor induction with dinoprostone vaginal insert (PROPESS) and double balloon cook catheter in term nulliparous pregnancies. Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor of the cervix in an adolescent with neurofibromatosis type 1: A case report and review of literature. Reevaluating the variation of cesarean scar defect. Clinical implications of genetic testing for congenital protein C deficiency in pregnancy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1