Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of adjunct non-pharmacological interventions on maternal and neonatal outcomes in gestational diabetes mellitus patients: A systematic review and network meta-analysis protocol of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in pregnancy leads to a range of perinatal complications. Although several randomized controlled trials (RCT) have tested the effect of non-pharmacological standard GDM care adjuncts on these outcomes, there is no agglomerated statistical evidence on how their occurrence risk varies across interventions and with placebo. Therefore, a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) protocol is proposed here to address this evidence gap.

Materials and methods

A search for above RCTs published in the English language will transpire in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases irrespective of date and geographic boundary. The RCTs must test nutritional supplementation, digital intervention, structured exercise program, educational program, counseling service, or a combination of these prenatally in GDM patients. These should report ≥1 of the following outcomes- cesarean section, pre-eclampsia, polyhydramnios, preterm birth, macrosomia, prolonged labor, gestational hypertension, premature rupture of membranes, congenital anomaly, Apgar scores, birth weight, birth length, gestational age at birth, neonatal hypoglycemia, neonatal hyperbilirubinemia, and neonatal Corpulence Index. The risk of bias assessment of the recruited trials will transpire using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Determination of the comparative effectiveness between interventions will occur by the frequentist method NMA for respective outcomes. The categorical and continuous outcomes effect size will get calculated in risk ratio and weighted or standardized mean difference, respectively. For each NMA model, network maps and league tables will show the connections between interventions and effect sizes with their 95% confidence intervals for each intervention pair compared, respectively. The publication bias assessment will occur using comparison-adjusted funnel plots. Best intervention prediction for NMA models with statistically significant intervention effect will happen by determining the surface under the cumulative ranking curve values. Statistical analysis will ensue using Stata software (v16). The statistical significance estimation will happen at p<0.05 and 95% confidence interval.

Trial registration

PROSPERO registration no: CRD42021271199; https://clinicaltrials.gov/.

SUBMITTER: Saha S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8794170 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is limited information on the costs and benefits of alternative adjunct non-pharmacological treatments for knee osteoarthritis and little guidance on which should be prioritised for commissioning within the NHS. This study estimates the costs and benefits of acupuncture, braces, heat treatment, insoles, interferential therapy, laser/light therapy, manual therapy, neuromuscular electrical stimulation, pulsed electrical stimulation, pulsed electromagnetic fields, static magnets and transcutaneous electrical nerve Stimulation (TENS), based on all relevant data, to facilitate a more complete assessment of value.MethodsData from 88 randomised controlled trials including 7,507 patients were obtained from a systematic review. The studies reported a wide range of outcomes. These were converted into EQ-5D index values using prediction models, and synthesised using network meta-analysis. Analyses were conducted including firstly all trials and secondly only trials with low risk of selection bias. Resource use was estimated from trials, expert opinion and the literature. A decision analytic model synthesised all evidence to assess interventions over a typical treatment period (constant benefit over eight weeks or linear increase in effect over weeks zero to eight and dissipation over weeks eight to 16).ResultsWhen all trials are considered, TENS is cost-effective at thresholds of £20-30,000 per QALY with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2,690 per QALY vs. usual care. When trials with a low risk of selection bias are considered, acupuncture is cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £13,502 per QALY vs. TENS. The results of the analysis were sensitive to varying the intensity, with which interventions were delivered, and the magnitude and duration of intervention effects on EQ-5D.ConclusionsUsing the £20,000 per QALY NICE threshold results in TENS being cost-effective if all trials are considered. If only higher quality trials are considered, acupuncture is cost-effective at this threshold, and thresholds down to £14,000 per QALY.

Project description:BACKGROUND:This review aimed to assess the existing evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions in adults with insomnia and identify where research or policy development is needed. METHODS:MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library, and PubMed were searched from inception until June 14, 2017, along with relevant gray literature sites. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full-text articles, and a single reviewer with an independent verifier completed charting, data abstraction, and quality appraisal. RESULTS:A total of 64 systematic reviews (35 with meta-analysis) were included after screening 5024 titles and abstracts and 525 full-text articles. Eight of the included reviews were rated as high quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) tool, and over half of the included articles (n?=?40) were rated as low or critically low quality. Consistent evidence of effectiveness across multiple outcomes based on more than one high- or moderate quality review with meta-analysis was found for zolpidem, suvorexant, doxepin, melatonin, and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and evidence of effectiveness across multiple outcomes based on one high-quality review with meta-analysis was found for temazepam, triazolam, zopiclone, trazodone, and behavioral interventions. These interventions were mostly evaluated in the short term (<?16 weeks), and there was very little harms data available for the pharmacological interventions making it difficult to evaluate their risk-benefit ratio. CONCLUSIONS:Assuming non-pharmacological interventions are preferable from a safety perspective CBT can be considered an effective first-line therapy for adults with insomnia followed by other behavioral interventions. Short courses of pharmacological interventions can be supplements to CBT or behavioral therapy; however, no evidence regarding the appropriate duration of pharmacological therapy is available from these reviews. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42017072527.

Project description:BackgroundIn 2019, 1 of 6 births was affected by gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) globally. GDM results in adverse maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes in the short and long term, such as pregnancy and birth complications, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and cardiovascular disease. In the context of "transgenerational programming," diabetes mellitus during pregnancy can contribute to "programming" errors and long-term consequences for the child. Therefore, early therapy strategies are required to improve the clinical management of GDM. The interest in digital therapy approaches, such as telemetry, has increased because they are promising, innovative, and sustainable.ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the current evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of telemetric interventions in the management of GDM, addressing maternal glycemic control, scheduled and unscheduled visits, satisfaction, diabetes self-efficacy, compliance, maternal complications in pregnancy and childbirth, as well as fetal and neonatal outcomes.MethodsMedline via PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL databases were systematically searched from January 2008 to April 2020. We included randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical trials in English and German. Study quality was assessed using "A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews" and "Effective Public Health Practice Project."ResultsOur search identified 1116 unique studies. Finally, we included 11 suitable studies (including a total of 563 patients and 2779 patient cases): 4 systematic reviews or meta-analyses (1 of high quality and 3 of moderate quality), 6 randomized controlled trials (2 of high quality and 4 of moderate quality), and 1 low-quality nonrandomized controlled trial. We classified 4 "asynchronous interventions" and 3 "asynchronous and real-time interventions." Our findings indicate that telemetric therapy clearly improves glycemic control and effectively reduces glycated hemoglobin A1c levels. Furthermore, in 1 study, telemetry proved to be a significant predictor for a better glycemic control (hazard ratio=1.71, 95% CI 1.11-2.65; P=.02), significantly fewer insulin titrations were required (P=.04), and glycemic control was achieved earlier. Telemetric therapy significantly reduced scheduled and unscheduled clinic visits effectively, and women were highly satisfied with the treatment (P<.05). From fetal and neonatal short-term outcomes, some improving tendencies in favor of telemetry were determined. No long-term outcomes were detected.ConclusionsTelemetric interventions clearly improved glycemic control, notably glycated hemoglobin A1c levels, and reduced scheduled and unscheduled clinic visits effectively, which reinforces this digital approach in the treatment of GDM.