التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
| العنوان: |
Effectiveness of remote monitoring for glycemic control on maternal–fetal outcomes in women with gestational diabetes mellitus: A meta‐analysis. |
| المؤلفون: |
Yue, Shu‐Wen, Zhou, Jie, Li, Lu, Guo, Jin‐Yi, Xu, Jing, Qiao, Jia, Redding, Sharon R., Ouyang, Yan‐Qiong |
| المصدر: |
Birth: Issues in Perinatal Care; Mar2024, Vol. 51 Issue 1, p13-27, 15p |
| مصطلحات موضوعية: |
MEDICAL databases, ONLINE information services, CINAHL database, GLYCOSYLATED hemoglobin, META-analysis, MEDICAL information storage & retrieval systems, CONFIDENCE intervals, GLYCEMIC control, BLOOD sugar monitoring, SYSTEMATIC reviews, FOOD consumption, PATIENT monitoring, PREGNANCY outcomes, NATURAL disasters, DESCRIPTIVE statistics, CHI-squared test, GESTATIONAL diabetes, POLICY sciences, MEDLINE, DATA analysis software, WOMEN'S health, TELEMEDICINE, COVID-19 pandemic |
| مستخلص: |
Background: The current pandemic and future public health emergencies highlight the importance of evaluating a telehealth care model. Previous studies have reached mixed conclusions about the effectiveness of remote monitoring on glycemic control and maternal and infant outcomes in women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Objectives: This meta‐analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of remote blood glucose monitoring for women with gestational diabetes mellitus and to provide evidence‐based guidance on the management of women with gestational diabetes mellitus for policymakers and healthcare providers during situations such as pandemics or natural disasters. Methods: The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO, Embase, Medline, CINAHL databases, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched from their inception to July 10, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English with respect to remote blood glucose monitoring in women with GDM were included in the meta‐analysis. Two independent reviewers performed data extraction and assessed the quality of the studies. Risk ratios, mean differences, 95% confidence intervals, and heterogeneity were calculated. Results: A total of 1265 participants were included in the 11 RCTs. There were no significant differences in glycemic control and maternal–fetal outcomes between the remote monitoring group and a standard care group, which included glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting blood glucose, mean 2‐h postprandial blood glucose, caesarean birth, gestational weight gain, shoulder dystocia, neonatal hypoglycemia, and other outcomes. Conclusion: This meta‐analysis reveals that it is unclear if remote glucose monitoring is preferable to standard of care glucose monitoring. To improve glycemic control and maternal–fetal outcomes during the current epidemic or other natural disasters, the implementation of double‐blind RCTs in the context of simulating similar disasters remains to be studied in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|
Copyright of Birth: Issues in Perinatal Care is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| قاعدة البيانات: |
Complementary Index |
Full Text Finder