Ebony B Carter, Sydney M Thayer, Rachel Paul, Valene Garr Barry, Sara N Iqbal, Stacey Ehrenberg, Michelle Doering, Sara E Mazzoni, Antonina I Frolova, Jeannie C Kelly, Nandini Raghuraman, Michelle P Debbink
{"title":"糖尿病组产前护理:系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Ebony B Carter, Sydney M Thayer, Rachel Paul, Valene Garr Barry, Sara N Iqbal, Stacey Ehrenberg, Michelle Doering, Sara E Mazzoni, Antonina I Frolova, Jeannie C Kelly, Nandini Raghuraman, Michelle P Debbink","doi":"10.1097/AOG.0000000000005442","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To estimate the effect of diabetes group prenatal care on rates of preterm birth and large for gestational age (LGA) among patients with diabetes in pregnancy compared with individual diabetes prenatal care.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We searched Ovid Medline (1946-), Embase.com (1947-), Scopus (1823-), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov .</p><p><strong>Methods of study selection: </strong>We searched electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing diabetes group prenatal care with individual care among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus or gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The primary outcomes were preterm birth before 37 weeks of gestation and LGA (birth weight at or above the 90th percentile). Secondary outcomes were small for gestational age, cesarean delivery, neonatal hypoglycemia, neonatal intensive care unit admission, breastfeeding at hospital discharge, long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) uptake, and 6-week postpartum visit attendance. Secondary outcomes, limited to the subgroup of patients with GDM, included rates of GDM requiring diabetes medication (A2GDM) and completion of postpartum oral glucose tolerance testing (OGTT). Heterogeneity was assessed with the Cochran Q test and I2 statistic. Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled relative risks (RRs) and weighted mean differences.</p><p><strong>Tabulation, integration, and results: </strong>Eight studies met study criteria and were included in the final analysis: three RCTs and five observational studies. A total of 1,701 patients were included in the pooled studies: 770 (45.3%) in diabetes group prenatal care and 931 (54.7%) in individual care. Patients in diabetes group prenatal care had similar rates of preterm birth compared with patients in individual care (seven studies: pooled rates 9.5% diabetes group prenatal care vs 11.5% individual care, pooled RR 0.77, 95% CI, 0.59-1.01), which held for RCTs and observational studies. There was no difference between diabetes group prenatal care and individual care in rates of LGA overall (four studies: pooled rate 16.7% diabetes group prenatal care vs 20.2% individual care, pooled RR 0.93, 95% CI, 0.59-1.45) or by study type. Rates of other secondary outcomes were similar between diabetes group prenatal care and individual care, except patients in diabetes group prenatal care were more likely to receive postpartum LARC (three studies: pooled rates 46.1% diabetes group prenatal care vs 34.1% individual care, pooled RR 1.44, 95% CI, 1.09-1.91). When analysis was limited to patients with GDM, there were no differences in rates of A2GDM or postpartum visit attendance, but patients in diabetes group prenatal care were significantly more likely to complete postpartum OGTT (five studies: pooled rate 74.0% diabetes group prenatal care vs 49.4% individual care, pooled RR 1.58, 95% CI, 1.19-2.09).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients with type 2 diabetes and GDM who participate in diabetes group prenatal care have similar rates of preterm birth, LGA, and other pregnancy outcomes compared with those who participate in individual care; however, they are significantly more likely to receive postpartum LARC, and those with GDM are more likely to return for postpartum OGTT.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>PROSPERO, CRD42021279233.</p>","PeriodicalId":5,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11078888/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diabetes Group Prenatal Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Ebony B Carter, Sydney M Thayer, Rachel Paul, Valene Garr Barry, Sara N Iqbal, Stacey Ehrenberg, Michelle Doering, Sara E Mazzoni, Antonina I Frolova, Jeannie C Kelly, Nandini Raghuraman, Michelle P Debbink\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/AOG.0000000000005442\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To estimate the effect of diabetes group prenatal care on rates of preterm birth and large for gestational age (LGA) among patients with diabetes in pregnancy compared with individual diabetes prenatal care.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>We searched Ovid Medline (1946-), Embase.com (1947-), Scopus (1823-), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov .</p><p><strong>Methods of study selection: </strong>We searched electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing diabetes group prenatal care with individual care among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus or gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The primary outcomes were preterm birth before 37 weeks of gestation and LGA (birth weight at or above the 90th percentile). Secondary outcomes were small for gestational age, cesarean delivery, neonatal hypoglycemia, neonatal intensive care unit admission, breastfeeding at hospital discharge, long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) uptake, and 6-week postpartum visit attendance. Secondary outcomes, limited to the subgroup of patients with GDM, included rates of GDM requiring diabetes medication (A2GDM) and completion of postpartum oral glucose tolerance testing (OGTT). Heterogeneity was assessed with the Cochran Q test and I2 statistic. Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled relative risks (RRs) and weighted mean differences.</p><p><strong>Tabulation, integration, and results: </strong>Eight studies met study criteria and were included in the final analysis: three RCTs and five observational studies. A total of 1,701 patients were included in the pooled studies: 770 (45.3%) in diabetes group prenatal care and 931 (54.7%) in individual care. Patients in diabetes group prenatal care had similar rates of preterm birth compared with patients in individual care (seven studies: pooled rates 9.5% diabetes group prenatal care vs 11.5% individual care, pooled RR 0.77, 95% CI, 0.59-1.01), which held for RCTs and observational studies. There was no difference between diabetes group prenatal care and individual care in rates of LGA overall (four studies: pooled rate 16.7% diabetes group prenatal care vs 20.2% individual care, pooled RR 0.93, 95% CI, 0.59-1.45) or by study type. Rates of other secondary outcomes were similar between diabetes group prenatal care and individual care, except patients in diabetes group prenatal care were more likely to receive postpartum LARC (three studies: pooled rates 46.1% diabetes group prenatal care vs 34.1% individual care, pooled RR 1.44, 95% CI, 1.09-1.91). When analysis was limited to patients with GDM, there were no differences in rates of A2GDM or postpartum visit attendance, but patients in diabetes group prenatal care were significantly more likely to complete postpartum OGTT (five studies: pooled rate 74.0% diabetes group prenatal care vs 49.4% individual care, pooled RR 1.58, 95% CI, 1.19-2.09).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients with type 2 diabetes and GDM who participate in diabetes group prenatal care have similar rates of preterm birth, LGA, and other pregnancy outcomes compared with those who participate in individual care; however, they are significantly more likely to receive postpartum LARC, and those with GDM are more likely to return for postpartum OGTT.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>PROSPERO, CRD42021279233.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":5,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11078888/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000005442\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/11/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000005442","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:与个体糖尿病产前护理相比,评估糖尿病组产前护理对妊娠期糖尿病患者早产和胎龄大(LGA)发生率的影响。数据来源:我们搜索了Ovid Medline(1946-)、Embase.com(1947-)、Scopus(1823-)、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials,和ClinicalTrials.gov。研究选择方法:我们在电子数据库中搜索随机对照试验(RCT)和观察性研究,比较2型糖尿病或妊娠期糖尿病患者的糖尿病组产前护理和个体护理。主要结果是妊娠37周前早产和LGA(出生体重达到或超过第90百分位)。次要结果为胎龄、剖宫产、新生儿低血糖、新生儿重症监护室入院、出院时母乳喂养、长效可逆避孕(LARC)和产后6周就诊。次要结果仅限于GDM患者亚组,包括需要糖尿病药物治疗的GDM发生率(A2GDM)和产后口服糖耐量测试(OGTT)的完成率。通过Cochran Q检验和I2统计来评估异质性。随机效应模型用于计算合并相对风险(RR)和加权平均差。制表、整合和结果:八项研究符合研究标准并纳入最终分析:三项随机对照试验和五项观察性研究。共有1701名患者被纳入合并研究:770名(45.3%)在糖尿病组产前护理中,931名(54.7%)在个体护理中。与个体护理患者相比,糖尿病组产前护理患者的早产率相似(七项研究:合并比率9.5%糖尿病组产前治疗vs 11.5%个体护理,合并RR 0.77,95%CI,0.59-1.01),这适用于随机对照试验和观察性研究。糖尿病组产前护理和个体护理的LGA总体发生率(四项研究:合并率16.7%糖尿病组产前保健vs 20.2%个体护理,合并RR 0.93,95%CI,0.59-1.45)或研究类型没有差异。糖尿病组产前护理和个体护理的其他次要结果发生率相似,除了糖尿病组产前保健的患者更有可能接受产后LARC(三项研究:合并比率46.1%糖尿病组产前治疗vs 34.1%个体护理,合并RR 1.44,95%CI,1.09-1.91)。当分析仅限于GDM患者时,A2GDM或产后访视率没有差异,但糖尿病组产前护理患者完成产后OGTT的可能性明显更高(五项研究:合并比率74.0%糖尿病组产前治疗vs 49.4%个体护理,合并RR 1.58,95%CI,1.19-2.09),以及与参与个体护理的人相比的其他妊娠结果;然而,他们更有可能接受产后LARC,而患有GDM的人更有可能返回产后OGTT。系统综述注册:PROSPERO,CRD42021279233。
Diabetes Group Prenatal Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Objective: To estimate the effect of diabetes group prenatal care on rates of preterm birth and large for gestational age (LGA) among patients with diabetes in pregnancy compared with individual diabetes prenatal care.
Data sources: We searched Ovid Medline (1946-), Embase.com (1947-), Scopus (1823-), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov .
Methods of study selection: We searched electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing diabetes group prenatal care with individual care among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus or gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The primary outcomes were preterm birth before 37 weeks of gestation and LGA (birth weight at or above the 90th percentile). Secondary outcomes were small for gestational age, cesarean delivery, neonatal hypoglycemia, neonatal intensive care unit admission, breastfeeding at hospital discharge, long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) uptake, and 6-week postpartum visit attendance. Secondary outcomes, limited to the subgroup of patients with GDM, included rates of GDM requiring diabetes medication (A2GDM) and completion of postpartum oral glucose tolerance testing (OGTT). Heterogeneity was assessed with the Cochran Q test and I2 statistic. Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled relative risks (RRs) and weighted mean differences.
Tabulation, integration, and results: Eight studies met study criteria and were included in the final analysis: three RCTs and five observational studies. A total of 1,701 patients were included in the pooled studies: 770 (45.3%) in diabetes group prenatal care and 931 (54.7%) in individual care. Patients in diabetes group prenatal care had similar rates of preterm birth compared with patients in individual care (seven studies: pooled rates 9.5% diabetes group prenatal care vs 11.5% individual care, pooled RR 0.77, 95% CI, 0.59-1.01), which held for RCTs and observational studies. There was no difference between diabetes group prenatal care and individual care in rates of LGA overall (four studies: pooled rate 16.7% diabetes group prenatal care vs 20.2% individual care, pooled RR 0.93, 95% CI, 0.59-1.45) or by study type. Rates of other secondary outcomes were similar between diabetes group prenatal care and individual care, except patients in diabetes group prenatal care were more likely to receive postpartum LARC (three studies: pooled rates 46.1% diabetes group prenatal care vs 34.1% individual care, pooled RR 1.44, 95% CI, 1.09-1.91). When analysis was limited to patients with GDM, there were no differences in rates of A2GDM or postpartum visit attendance, but patients in diabetes group prenatal care were significantly more likely to complete postpartum OGTT (five studies: pooled rate 74.0% diabetes group prenatal care vs 49.4% individual care, pooled RR 1.58, 95% CI, 1.19-2.09).
Conclusion: Patients with type 2 diabetes and GDM who participate in diabetes group prenatal care have similar rates of preterm birth, LGA, and other pregnancy outcomes compared with those who participate in individual care; however, they are significantly more likely to receive postpartum LARC, and those with GDM are more likely to return for postpartum OGTT.
期刊介绍:
ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces is a leading interdisciplinary journal that brings together chemists, engineers, physicists, and biologists to explore the development and utilization of newly-discovered materials and interfacial processes for specific applications. Our journal has experienced remarkable growth since its establishment in 2009, both in terms of the number of articles published and the impact of the research showcased. We are proud to foster a truly global community, with the majority of published articles originating from outside the United States, reflecting the rapid growth of applied research worldwide.