4.5 Review

Ultrasound-guided compared to conventional treatment in gestational diabetes leads to improved birthweight but more insulin treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/aogs.12291

关键词

Gestational diabetes mellitus; ultrasound; insulin therapy; systematic review; meta-analysis; randomized control trial

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveTo perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials assessing ultrasound-guided versus conventional management in women with a broad severity-spectrum of gestational diabetes mellitus. DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of trials published until August 2012. SettingPubMed and Web of Science databases. Study selection and methodsEighteen studies were reviewed in full text. Eligibility criteria were (i) randomized controlled trials comparing metabolic management in women with gestational diabetes mellitus and ultrasound-based vs. the conventional management to assess fetal growth, (ii) representative of the whole spectrum of hyperglycemia and fetal growth, (iii) data on perinatal outcomes. Review Manager 5.0 was used to summarize the results. ResultsTwo studies fulfilled inclusion criteria. The ultrasound-guided group had a lower rate of large-for-gestational age newborns (relative risk 0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.34-0.99), macrosomia (relative risk 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.11-0.95) and abnormal birthweight (small/large-for-gestational age, relative risk 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.45-0.93) and a higher rate of insulin treatment (relative risk 1.58, 95% confidence interval 1.14-2.20). The number of women with gestational diabetes with a need to treat to prevent an additional newborn with abnormal birthweight was 10. ConclusionsIn women with a broad severity-spectrum of gestational diabetes mellitus, ultrasound-guided management improves birthweight distribution, but increases the need for insulin treatment. More research is needed in this area because results are derived from a limited number of patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据