Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Antenatal dietary supplementation with myo‐inositol for preventing gestational diabetes

Information

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011507.pub3Copy DOI
Database:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version published:
  1. 15 February 2023see what's new
Type:
  1. Intervention
Stage:
  1. Review
Cochrane Editorial Group:
  1. Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2023 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Article metrics

Altmetric:

Cited by:

Cited 0 times via Crossref Cited-by Linking

Collapse

Authors

  • Soana K Motuhifonuaa

    Liggins Institute, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    These authors contributed equally to this work

  • Luling Lina

    Liggins Institute, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    These authors contributed equally to this work

  • Jane Alsweiler

    Department of Paediatrics: Child and Youth Health, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

  • Tineke J Crawford

    Liggins Institute, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

  • Caroline A Crowther

    Correspondence to: Liggins Institute, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    [email protected]

Contributions of authors

Luling Lin is guarantor for this review.

Soana Motuhifonua and Luling Lin, with support from Jane Alsweiler and Caroline Crowther, screened the search results, retrieved relevant papers, screened retrieved papers against eligibility criteria, appraised quality of papers, extracted data from papers, wrote to authors of papers for additional information, entered data into RevMan, analysed and interpreted data, wrote the first draft of this updated review,  and incorporated feedback into subsequent versions of the review.

Jane Alsweiler provided a neonatal clinical perspective, and contributed to all versions of the review.

Tineke Crawford provided feedback on versions of the review.

Caroline Crowther provided a maternal fetal medicine clinical and methodological perspective and contributed to all versions of the review.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • The Liggins Institute, The University of Auckland, New Zealand

    Provision of support for authors preparing reviews in pregnancy, childbirth and neonatal care.

External sources

  • The Australian and New Zealand Satellite of the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Review Group, Auckland, New Zealand

    Provision of support for authors preparing reviews in pregnancy, childbirth and neonatal care within Australia and New Zealand.

  • The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Review Group editorial team, Liverpool, UK

    Providing full editorial support.

Declarations of interest

Soana K Motuhifonua: reports no conflicts of interest.

Jane Alsweiler: reports working as a health professional as a Neonatal Paediatrician, Auckland District Health Board, but no other conflicts of interest.

Tineke J Crawford: reports no conflicts of interest.

Luling Lin: reports no conflicts of interest.

Caroline A Crowther: reports no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgements

Portions of the methods section of this protocol are based on a standard template used by the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Review Group. Outcomes may be similar to other Cochrane reviews for preventing gestational diabetes to provide consistent core outcomes for reviews on this condition.

We acknowledge the support from the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Review Group editorial team in Liverpool, the Australian and New Zealand Satellite of the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Review Group, and the support from the Liggins Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

As part of the pre‐publication editorial process, this review has been commented on by three peers (an editor and two referees who are external to the editorial team), and the Group's Statistical Adviser. The authors are grateful to the following peer reviewers for their time and comments: Diane Farrar, Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford, UK; Shanshan Han PhD, Master of Nutrition and Dietetics, Bachelor of Medicine, Adelaide, Australia.

We thank Julie Brown and Susan Kruse for their contribution as authors in previous versions of this review and Dahineswari Rajamanickam who assisted the initial review authors in preparing the first draft of the protocol.

This project was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), via Cochrane Infrastructure funding to Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Evidence Synthesis Programme, the NIHR, National Health Service (NHS) or the Department of Health and Social Care.

We thank Lindsay Robertson for her help in copy editing the final draft of this review. 

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2023 Feb 15

Antenatal dietary supplementation with myo‐inositol for preventing gestational diabetes

Review

Soana K Motuhifonua, Luling Lin, Jane Alsweiler, Tineke J Crawford, Caroline A Crowther

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011507.pub3

2015 Dec 17

Antenatal dietary supplementation with myo‐inositol in women during pregnancy for preventing gestational diabetes

Review

Tineke J Crawford, Caroline A Crowther, Jane Alsweiler, Julie Brown

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011507.pub2

2015 Feb 04

Myo‐inositol for preventing gestational diabetes

Protocol

Julie Brown, Tineke J Crawford, Jane Alsweiler, Caroline A Crowther

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011507

Differences between protocol and review

This updated review published in 2021 followed the criteria and outcomes used in the review published in 2015. 

For the review published in 2015 there were some differences between published protocol (Brown 2015) as detailed below.

The title was listed as Myo‐inositol for preventing gestational diabetes in our published protocol but we have edited this to Antenatal dietary supplementation with myo‐inositol in women during pregnancy for preventing gestational diabetes in order to allow more clarity around the intervention, population and outcome.

Methods/criteria for considering studies for this review

Types of interventions: we have expanded this section to include myo‐inositol in a combination preparation; this is also reflected in our list of planned subgroup analyses.

Types of participants: we have clarified that participants will be pregnant women rather than pregnant women at risk of gestational diabetes.

We have incorporated the use of GRADE to assess the quality of the body of evidence and have included summary of findings tables; this was not pre‐specified in our published protocol.

We have reported on the outcome need for supplementary insulin therapy; whilst this is not listed in our methods and outcomes section (and was not pre‐specified in our published protocol), we report on this outcome for interest.

Following a consultative process with Professor Caroline Crowther, Dr Julie Brown, Dr Philippa Middleton, Emily Bain, and Tineke Crawford, a core set of primary and secondary outcomes for GDM systematic reviews and core outcomes for GRADE assessment for GDM systematic reviews were drawn up. This has resulted in a number of changes detailed below. These core outcomes were agreed upon after this review had been submitted for peer review.

Additionally, as this is a review on the use of a dietary supplement as an intervention, adverse effects of the intervention has been added as an outcome.

Previous maternal primary outcomes listed in protocol

  • Incidence of gestational diabetes (diagnostic criteria as defined in individual studies)

  • Pre‐eclampsia

  • Caesarean section

Updated maternal primary outcomes used in review

  • Gestational diabetes

  • Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (including pre‐eclampsia, eclampsia, pregnancy‐induced hypertension)

Previous neonatal primary outcomes listed in protocol

  • Large‐for‐gestational age (birthweight greater than the 90th centile; or as defined by individual study)

  • Perinatal mortality

  • Death or morbidity composite (variously defined by studies, e.g. infant death, shoulder dystocia, bone fracture or nerve palsy)

Updated neonatal primary outcomes used in review

  • Large‐for‐gestational age (birthweight greater than the 90th centile; or as defined by individual study)

  • Perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality)

  • Mortality or morbidity composite (variously defined by studies, e.g. infant death, shoulder dystocia, bone fracture or nerve palsy)

Previous maternal secondary outcomes listed in protocol

  • Postnatal weight retention

  • Body mass index (BMI)

  • Development of type 1 diabetes mellitus

  • Development of type 2 diabetes mellitus

  • Impaired glucose tolerance (as defined in individual studies)

  • Insulin sensitivity (as defined in individual studies)

  • Incidence of pregnancy hyperglycaemia not meeting gestational diabetes diagnostic criteria (diagnostic criteria as defined in individual studies)

  • Induction of labour

  • Perineal trauma

  • Weight gain during pregnancy

  • Adiponectin levels

  • Gestational age at screening for gestational diabetes

  • Postpartum hemorrhage

  • Postpartum infection

  • Placental abruption

  • Polyhydramnios

  • Compliance with treatment

  • Breastfeeding at discharge, six weeks' postpartum

  • Women’s sense of well‐being and quality of life (as defined in individual studies)

  • Women’s view of intervention

Updated maternal secondary outcomes used in review

  • Caesarean section

  • Placental abruption

  • Induction of labour

  • Perineal trauma

  • Postpartum hemorrhage

  • Postpartum infection

  • Weight gain during pregnancy

  • Adherence to the intervention (as defined by trialists)

  • Behaviour changes associated with the intervention (as defined by trialists)

  • Relevant biomarker changes associated with the intervention (e.g. adiponectin, free fatty acids, triglycerides, high density lipoproteins, low density lipoproteins, insulin)

  • Sense of well‐being and quality of life

  • Views of the intervention

  • Breastfeeding (e.g. at discharge, six weeks postpartum)

  • Adverse effects of intervention

Long‐term maternal outcomes

  • Postnatal depression

  • Postnatal weight retention or return to pre‐pregnancy weight

  • Body mass index (BMI)

  • Gestational diabetes in a subsequent pregnancy

  • Type 1 diabetes mellitus

  • Type 2 diabetes mellitus

  • Impaired glucose tolerance

  • Cardiovascular health (as defined by trialists, including blood pressure (BP), hypertension, cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome)

Previous neonatal secondary outcomes listed in protocol

  • Macrosomia (as defined in individual studies)

  • Birthweight and z‐score

  • Head circumference and z‐score

  • Length and z‐score

  • Small‐for‐gestational age (as defined in individual studies)

  • Neonatal hypoglycaemia requiring treatment (as defined in individual studies)

  • Gestational age at birth

  • Preterm birth (less than 37 weeks’ gestational age)

  • Shoulder dystocia

  • Bone fracture

  • Nerve palsy

  • Respiratory distress syndrome

  • Hyperbilirubinaemia requiring treatment (as defined in individual studies)

  • Apgar scores (less than seven at five minutes)

  • Ponderal index

  • Fetal adiposity (as defined in individual studies)

  • Neonatal glucose concentration

  • Infant mortality (fetal, neonatal, perinatal)

Updated secondary outcomes used in review

  • Stillbirth

  • Neonatal mortality

  • Gestational age at birth

  • Preterm birth (less than 37 weeks' gestation and less than 32 weeks' gestation)

  • Apgar score (less than seven at five minutes)

  • Macrosomia

  • Small‐for‐gestational age

  • Birthweight and z‐score

  • Head circumference and z‐score

  • Length and z‐score

  • Ponderal index

  • Adiposity

  • Shoulder dystocia

  • Bone fracture

  • Nerve palsy

  • Respiratory distress syndrome

  • Hypoglycaemia (variously defined)

  • Hyperbilirubinaemia

Previous childhood outcomes listed in protocol

  • Weight

  • Height

  • Head circumference

  • Body mass index

  • Adiposity (fat mass/fat free mass (variously measured))

  • Blood pressure

  • Impaired glucose tolerance (as defined in individual studies)

  • Development of type 1 diabetes mellitus

  • Development of type 2 diabetes mellitus

  • Insulin sensitivity

  • Dyslipidaemia or metabolic syndrome

  • Neurodisability

  • Educational achievement

Updated childhood outcomes used in review

  • Weight and z scores

  • Height and z scores

  • Head circumference and z scores

  • Adiposity (e.g. as measured by BMI, skinfold thickness)

  • Blood pressure

  • Type 1 diabetes mellitus

  • Type 2 diabetes mellitus

  • Impaired glucose tolerance

  • Dyslipidaemia or metabolic syndrome

  • Neurodisability

  • Educational achievement

Previous adulthood outcomes listed in protocol

  • Weight

  • Height

  • BMI

  • Adiposity (fat mass/fat‐free mass (variously measured))

  • Blood pressure

  • Impaired glucose tolerance (as defined in individual studies)

  • Development of type 1 diabetes

  • Development of type 2 diabetes

  • Insulin sensitivity (as defined in individual studies)

  • Dyslipidaemia or metabolic syndrome

  • Educational achievement

Updated adulthood outcomes used in review

  • Weight

  • Height

  • Adiposity (e.g. as measured by BMI, skinfold thickness)

  • Cardiovascular health (as defined by trialists, including BP, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome)

  • Type 1 diabetes mellitus

  • Type 2 diabetes mellitus

  • Impaired glucose tolerance

  • Dyslipidaemia or metabolic syndrome

  • Employment, education and social status/achievement

Previous health services cost outcomes listed in protocol

  • Number of hospital visits or health professional visits (e.g. midwife, obstetrician, physician, dietitian)

  • Antenatal visits for mother

  • Direct costs to families in relation to the management provided

  • Length of postnatal stay (mother)

  • Admission to neonatal ward/ neonatal intensive care unit

  • Length of postnatal stay (baby)

  • Cost of maternal care

  • Cost of offspring care

Updated health services cost outcomes used in review

  • Number of hospital or health professional visits (e.g. midwife, obstetrician, physician, dietitian, diabetic nurse)

  • Number of antenatal visits or admissions

  • Length of antenatal stay

  • Neonatal intensive care unit admission

  • Length of postnatal stay (mother)

  • Length of postnatal stay (baby)

  • Costs to families associated with the management provided

  • Costs associated with the intervention

  • Cost of maternal care

  • Cost of offspring care

Previous GRADE outcomes listed in protocol

  • Incidence of gestational diabetes (diagnostic criteria as defined in individual studies)

  • Pre‐eclampsia

  • Mode of birth

  • Large‐for‐gestational age (birthweight greater than the 90th centile; or as defined by individual study)

  • Perinatal mortality

  • Fetal adiposity

  • Impaired glucose tolerance as child/adult

Updated GRADE outcomes used in review

Maternal

  • Diagnosis of gestational diabetes

  • Gestational weight gain

  • Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (including pre‐eclampsia, eclampsia, pregnancy‐induced hypertension)

  • Caesarean Section

  • Perineal trauma

  • Postnatal depression

  • Development of subsequent type 2 diabetes mellitus

Offspring (infant, child, adult)

  • Large‐for‐gestational age

  • Perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality)

  • Composite of serious neonatal outcomes

  • Neonatal hypoglycaemia (variously defined)

  • Offspring adiposity (e.g. as measured by BMI, skinfold thickness)

  • Offspring diabetes

  • Neurosensory disability

Keywords

MeSH

PICOs

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

The PICO model is widely used and taught in evidence-based health care as a strategy for formulating questions and search strategies and for characterizing clinical studies or meta-analyses. PICO stands for four different potential components of a clinical question: Patient, Population or Problem; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.

See more on using PICO in the Cochrane Handbook.

Study flow diagram for updated review

Figures and Tables -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram for updated review

Applying the trustworthiness screening tool criteria. TST: Trustworthiness Screening Tool.

Figures and Tables -
Figure 2

Applying the trustworthiness screening tool criteria. TST: Trustworthiness Screening Tool.

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies

Figures and Tables -
Figure 3

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study

Figures and Tables -
Figure 4

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 1: Gestational diabetes mellitus

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 1: Gestational diabetes mellitus

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 2: Fasting OGTT

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 2: Fasting OGTT

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 3: One hour OGTT

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 3: One hour OGTT

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 4: Two hour OGTT

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 4: Two hour OGTT

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 5: Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 5: Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 6: Large‐for‐gestational‐age

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 6: Large‐for‐gestational‐age

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 7: Caesarean section

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 7: Caesarean section

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 8: Weight gain during pregnancy

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 8: Weight gain during pregnancy

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 9: Relevant biomarker changes associated with the intervention

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 9: Relevant biomarker changes associated with the intervention

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 10: Perineal trauma

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 10: Perineal trauma

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 11: Postpartum haemorrhage 

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 11: Postpartum haemorrhage 

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 12: Adherence to intervention

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 12: Adherence to intervention

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 13: Supplementary insulin

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 13: Supplementary insulin

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 14: Gestational age at birth

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 14: Gestational age at birth

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 15: Preterm birth (less than 37 weeks' gestation)

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 15: Preterm birth (less than 37 weeks' gestation)

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 16: Macrosomia

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 16: Macrosomia

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 17: Birthweight

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.17

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 17: Birthweight

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 18: Shoulder dystocia

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.18

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 18: Shoulder dystocia

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 19: Respiratory distress syndrome

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.19

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 19: Respiratory distress syndrome

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 20: Neonatal hypoglycaemia

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.20

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 20: Neonatal hypoglycaemia

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 21: Small‐for‐gestational‐age

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.21

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 21: Small‐for‐gestational‐age

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 22: Neonatal hyperbilirubinaemia

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.22

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 22: Neonatal hyperbilirubinaemia

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 23: Admission to neonatal intensive care unit or special care baby unit

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.23

Comparison 1: Myo‐inositol versus control, Outcome 23: Admission to neonatal intensive care unit or special care baby unit

Summary of findings 1. Myo‐inositol for preventing gestational diabetes: maternal outcomes

Antenatal supplementation with myo‐inositol for preventing gestational diabetes

Patient or population: pregnant women (women with pre‐existing type 1 or type 2 diabetes are NOT included) 
Intervention: myo‐inositol

Setting: hospital
Comparison: folic acid or placebo

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Certainty of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with control

Risk with myo‐inositol

Gestational diabetes mellitus

Study population

RR 0.53
(0.31 to 0.90)

1140
(6 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝

Very lowa,b,c

GDM diagnosed using IADPSG 2010 criteria

 

Random‐effects model

217 per 1000

115 per 1,000

(67 to 196)

Weight gain during pregnancy

Comparator

The mean weight gain during pregnancy in the intervention group was 0.25 kg lower (1.26 kg fewer to 0.76 kg more)

831
(4 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very lowb,c,d,e

 

 

Random‐effects model

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy

Study population

RR 0.34
(0.19 to 0.61)

1052
(5 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowc,f

Random‐effects model

86 per 1,000

29 per 1,000
(16 to 53)

Caesarean section

Study population

RR 0.91
(0.77 to 1.07)

829
(4 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowc,g

 

430 per 1,000

391 per 1,000
(331 to 460)

Perineal trauma

Study population

RR 4.00
(0.45 to 35.25)

234

(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very lowh,i,j

 

9 per 1,000

34 per 1,000 

(4 to 301)

Postnatal depression

 See comments

Not estimable

(0 studies)

 

No data reported this outcome in any of the included studies

 

 

Development of subsequent type 2 diabetes mellitus

 See comments

Not estimable

(0 studies)

 

No data reported this outcome in any of the included studies

 

 

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

a. Downgraded (‐1) for serious limitations in study design: due to unclear risk of selection bias in two of the six included studies; five of the six included studies were at high risk of performance bias; two of the six included studies were at high risk of detection bias; one study was at high risk of attrition bias. 

b. Downgraded (‐1) for serious inconsistency; considerable heterogeneity, possible due to different study populations. 

c. Downgraded (‐1) for serious indirectness; only one of the included studies was conducted outside Italy, and the Italian studies only included white women, the generalisability of findings is limited. 

d. Downgraded (‐1) for serious limitations in study design: all studies were at high risk of performance bias; one study was at high risk of detection bias. 

e. Downgraded (‐1) for serious imprecision; evidence of imprecision with wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect. 

f. Downgraded (‐1) for serious limitations in study design: all studies were at high risk of performance bias; two studies were at high risk of detection bias. 

g. Downgraded (‐1) for serious limitations in study design: all studies were at high risk of performance bias. One study was at high risk of detection bias, and insufficient evidence to judge detection bias and subsequent judgement of unclear risk of bias. Due to insufficient evidence to judge allocation concealment in two studies and subsequent judgement of unclear risk of bias. Due to insufficient evidence to judge attrition bias in two studies and subsequent judgement of unclear risk of bias. 

h. Downgraded (‐1) for serious limitations in study design: the study was at high risk of performance bias and detection bias for lack of blinding. 

i. Downgraded (‐1) for serious Indirectness: only one study conducted in Ireland reported this outcome. 

j. Downgraded (‐1) for serious imprecision: wide confidence intervals with very low event rates. 

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings 1. Myo‐inositol for preventing gestational diabetes: maternal outcomes
Summary of findings 2. Myo‐inositol for preventing gestational diabetes: infant, child and adult outcomes

Antenatal supplementation with myo‐inositol for preventing gestational diabetes

Patient or population: infants of pregnant women

Setting: hospital
Intervention: myo‐inositol
Comparison: folic acid or placebo

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Certainty of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with control

Risk with myo‐inositol

Large‐for‐gestational age

Study population

RR 1.40
(0.65 to 3.02)

234
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowa,b

 

85 per 1000

120 per 1000

(56 to 258)

Perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality)

 See comments

Not estimable

(0 studies)

 

No data reported this outcome in any of the included studies

 

 

Composite of serious neonatal outcomes

 See comments

not estimable

(0 studies)

 

No data reported this outcome in any of the included studies

 

 

Neonatal hypoglycaemia

Study population

RR 3.07
(0.90 to 10.52)

671
(4 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
Very lowc,d,e

 

9 per 1,000

27 per 1000
(8 to 91)

Adiposity

 See comments

not estimable

(0 studies)

 

No data reported this outcome in any of the included studies

 

 

Diabetes

 See comments

not estimable

(0 studies)

 

No data reported this outcome in any of the included studies

 

 

Neurosensory disability

 See comments

not estimable

(0 studies)

 

No data reported this outcome in any of the included studies

 

 

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

a. Downgraded (‐1) for serious limitations in study design: the study was at high risk of performance bias and detection bias for lack of blinding. 

b. Downgraded (‐1) for serious indirectness: only one study conducted in Ireland reported this outcome. 

c. Downgraded (‐1) for serious limitations in study design: all studies were at high risk of performance bias; one study was at high risk of detection bias. 

d. Downgraded (‐1) for serious indirectness: only one of the included studies was conducted outside Italy, and the Italian studies only included Caucasian women. Thus, the generalisability of findings is limited. 

e. Downgraded (‐1) for serious imprecision: evidence of imprecision with wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect. 

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings 2. Myo‐inositol for preventing gestational diabetes: infant, child and adult outcomes
Comparison 1. Myo‐inositol versus control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1.1 Gestational diabetes mellitus Show forest plot

6

1140

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.53 [0.31, 0.90]

1.2 Fasting OGTT Show forest plot

5

1071

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.14 [‐0.21, ‐0.07]

1.3 One hour OGTT Show forest plot

5

1071

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.34 [‐0.55, ‐0.14]

1.4 Two hour OGTT Show forest plot

5

1071

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.38 [‐0.77, 0.01]

1.5 Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy Show forest plot

5

1052

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.19, 0.61]

1.6 Large‐for‐gestational‐age Show forest plot

1

234

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.40 [0.65, 3.02]

1.7 Caesarean section Show forest plot

4

829

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.77, 1.07]

1.8 Weight gain during pregnancy Show forest plot

4

831

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.25 [‐1.26, 0.76]

1.9 Relevant biomarker changes associated with the intervention Show forest plot

3

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.9.1 Total cholesterol

3

340

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐29.57 [‐32.80, ‐26.33]

1.9.2 Low density lipoprotein

3

340

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐22.43 [‐25.86, ‐19.00]

1.9.3 High density lipoprotein

3

340

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.46 [‐2.72, ‐0.20]

1.9.4 Triglycerides

3

340

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐24.92 [‐27.82, ‐22.02]

1.10 Perineal trauma Show forest plot

1

234

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.00 [0.45, 35.25]

1.11 Postpartum haemorrhage  Show forest plot

1

234

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.31, 1.42]

1.12 Adherence to intervention Show forest plot

1

240

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.99 [0.84, 1.16]

1.13 Supplementary insulin Show forest plot

3

595

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.50 [0.17, 1.52]

1.14 Gestational age at birth Show forest plot

4

829

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

3.69 [‐1.48, 8.86]

1.15 Preterm birth (less than 37 weeks' gestation) Show forest plot

4

829

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.35 [0.17, 0.70]

1.16 Macrosomia Show forest plot

4

829

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.55 [0.16, 1.96]

1.17 Birthweight Show forest plot

4

829

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐8.65 [‐140.36, 123.07]

1.18 Shoulder dystocia Show forest plot

4

829

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.43 [0.15, 13.54]

1.19 Respiratory distress syndrome Show forest plot

2

431

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.49 [0.25, 8.85]

1.20 Neonatal hypoglycaemia Show forest plot

4

671

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.07 [0.90, 10.52]

1.21 Small‐for‐gestational‐age Show forest plot

1

234

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.33 [0.62, 8.80]

1.22 Neonatal hyperbilirubinaemia Show forest plot

1

234

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.25 [0.05, 1.15]

1.23 Admission to neonatal intensive care unit or special care baby unit Show forest plot

2

435

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.40 [0.14, 1.18]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. Myo‐inositol versus control