Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Study flow diagram
Figures and Tables -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies
Figures and Tables -
Figure 2

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 3

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

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 1 Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 1 Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 2 Caesarean section.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 2 Caesarean section.

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 3 Perinatal mortality.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 3 Perinatal mortality.

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 4 Large‐for‐gestational age.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 4 Large‐for‐gestational age.

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 5 Death or serious morbidity composite.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 5 Death or serious morbidity composite.

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 6 Operative vaginal birth (not a prespecified outcome).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 6 Operative vaginal birth (not a prespecified outcome).

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 7 Induction of labour.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 7 Induction of labour.

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 8 Placental abruption.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 8 Placental abruption.

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 9 Gestational weight gain (kg).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 9 Gestational weight gain (kg).

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 10 Weight at 36 weeks (kg).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 10 Weight at 36 weeks (kg).

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 11 Adherence to the intervention.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 11 Adherence to the intervention.

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 12 Sense of well‐being and quality of life: DES: Diabetes Empowerment Scale.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 12 Sense of well‐being and quality of life: DES: Diabetes Empowerment Scale.

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 13 Use of additional pharmacotherapy.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 13 Use of additional pharmacotherapy.

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 14 Maternal hypoglycaemia.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 14 Maternal hypoglycaemia.

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 15 Maternal hypoglycaemia: self‐monitored blood glucose episodes hypoglycaemic (< 3.9 mmol/L) (%).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 15 Maternal hypoglycaemia: self‐monitored blood glucose episodes hypoglycaemic (< 3.9 mmol/L) (%).

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 16 Glycaemic control: HbA1c (%).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 16 Glycaemic control: HbA1c (%).

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 17 Glycaemic control: HbA1c < 5.8%.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.17

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 17 Glycaemic control: HbA1c < 5.8%.

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 18 Glycaemic control: HbA1c at 36 weeks (mmol/mol).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.18

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 18 Glycaemic control: HbA1c at 36 weeks (mmol/mol).

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 19 Glycaemic control: self‐monitored blood glucose (mmol/L).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.19

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 19 Glycaemic control: self‐monitored blood glucose (mmol/L).

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 20 Glycaemic control: fasting and 2‐hour post‐prandial blood glucose (mg/dL).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.20

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 20 Glycaemic control: fasting and 2‐hour post‐prandial blood glucose (mg/dL).

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 21 Stillbirth.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.21

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 21 Stillbirth.

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 22 Neonatal death.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.22

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 22 Neonatal death.

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 23 Gestational age at birth (weeks).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.23

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 23 Gestational age at birth (weeks).

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 24 Preterm birth < 37 weeks.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.24

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 24 Preterm birth < 37 weeks.

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 25 Macrosomia.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.25

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 25 Macrosomia.

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 26 Small‐for‐gestational age.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.26

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 26 Small‐for‐gestational age.

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 27 Birthweight (g).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.27

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 27 Birthweight (g).

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 28 Head circumference (cm).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.28

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 28 Head circumference (cm).

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 29 Length (cm).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.29

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 29 Length (cm).

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 30 Shoulder dystocia.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.30

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 30 Shoulder dystocia.

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 31 Respiratory distress syndrome.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.31

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 31 Respiratory distress syndrome.

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 32 Neonatal hypoglycaemia.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.32

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 32 Neonatal hypoglycaemia.

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 33 Hyperbilirubinaemia or jaundice.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.33

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 33 Hyperbilirubinaemia or jaundice.

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 34 Hypocalcaemia.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.34

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 34 Hypocalcaemia.

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 35 Polycythaemia.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.35

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 35 Polycythaemia.

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 36 Number of hospital or health professional visits: face‐to‐face visits.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.36

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 36 Number of hospital or health professional visits: face‐to‐face visits.

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 37 Number of hospital or health professional visits: unscheduled face‐to‐face visits.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.37

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 37 Number of hospital or health professional visits: unscheduled face‐to‐face visits.

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 38 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.38

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 38 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 39 'Neonatal morbidity' (neonatal complications: e.g. hypoglycaemia, hyperbilirubinaemia, respiratory distress syndrome, shoulder dystocia, malformations) (not a prespecified outcome).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.39

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 39 'Neonatal morbidity' (neonatal complications: e.g. hypoglycaemia, hyperbilirubinaemia, respiratory distress syndrome, shoulder dystocia, malformations) (not a prespecified outcome).

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 40 'Maternal morbidity' (maternal complications: gestational hypertension, pre‐eclampsia, eclampsia, hypoglycaemic episodes) (not a prespecified outcome).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.40

Comparison 1 Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring, Outcome 40 'Maternal morbidity' (maternal complications: gestational hypertension, pre‐eclampsia, eclampsia, hypoglycaemic episodes) (not a prespecified outcome).

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 1 Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: pre‐eclampsia.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 1 Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: pre‐eclampsia.

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 2 Caesarean section.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 2 Caesarean section.

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 3 Perinatal mortality.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 3 Perinatal mortality.

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 4 Large‐for‐gestational age.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 4 Large‐for‐gestational age.

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 5 Placental abruption.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 5 Placental abruption.

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 6 Postpartum haemorrhage.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 6 Postpartum haemorrhage.

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 7 Gestational weight gain (kg/week).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.7

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 7 Gestational weight gain (kg/week).

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 8 Gestational weight gain (lb).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.8

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 8 Gestational weight gain (lb).

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 9 Adherence to the intervention: < 70% adherence to home blood glucose measurements or diabetes outpatient clinic appointments.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.9

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 9 Adherence to the intervention: < 70% adherence to home blood glucose measurements or diabetes outpatient clinic appointments.

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 10 Adherence to the intervention: Dietary Compliance Questionnaire.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.10

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 10 Adherence to the intervention: Dietary Compliance Questionnaire.

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 11 Sense of well‐being and quality of life: Diabetes Empowerment Scale delta scores.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.11

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 11 Sense of well‐being and quality of life: Diabetes Empowerment Scale delta scores.

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 12 Sense of well‐being and quality of life: emotional adjustment: Appraisal of Diabetes Scale delta scores.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.12

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 12 Sense of well‐being and quality of life: emotional adjustment: Appraisal of Diabetes Scale delta scores.

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 13 Use of additional pharmacotherapy: insulin.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.13

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 13 Use of additional pharmacotherapy: insulin.

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 14 Glycaemic control: pre‐prandial blood glucose (mmol/L).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.14

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 14 Glycaemic control: pre‐prandial blood glucose (mmol/L).

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 15 Glycaemic control: 1‐hour post‐prandial blood glucose (mmol/L).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.15

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 15 Glycaemic control: 1‐hour post‐prandial blood glucose (mmol/L).

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 16 Stillbirth.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.16

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 16 Stillbirth.

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 17 Neonatal death.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.17

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 17 Neonatal death.

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 18 Gestational age at birth (weeks).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.18

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 18 Gestational age at birth (weeks).

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 19 Macrosomia.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.19

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 19 Macrosomia.

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 20 Small‐for‐gestational age.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.20

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 20 Small‐for‐gestational age.

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 21 Birthweight (kg).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.21

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 21 Birthweight (kg).

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 22 Birthweight (percentile).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.22

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 22 Birthweight (percentile).

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 23 Shoulder dystocia.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.23

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 23 Shoulder dystocia.

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 24 Neonatal hypoglycaemia.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.24

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 24 Neonatal hypoglycaemia.

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 25 Hyperbilirubinaemia or jaundice.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.25

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 25 Hyperbilirubinaemia or jaundice.

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 26 Number of antenatal visits or admissions: prenatal visits with the diabetes team.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.26

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 26 Number of antenatal visits or admissions: prenatal visits with the diabetes team.

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 27 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.27

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 27 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 28 'Birth trauma' (not a prespecified outcome).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.28

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 28 'Birth trauma' (not a prespecified outcome).

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 29 'Respiratory complications' (not a prespecified outcome).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 2.29

Comparison 2 Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring, Outcome 29 'Respiratory complications' (not a prespecified outcome).

Comparison 3 Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose, Outcome 1 Caesarean section.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose, Outcome 1 Caesarean section.

Comparison 3 Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose, Outcome 2 Perinatal mortality.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.2

Comparison 3 Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose, Outcome 2 Perinatal mortality.

Comparison 3 Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose, Outcome 3 Large‐for‐gestational age.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.3

Comparison 3 Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose, Outcome 3 Large‐for‐gestational age.

Comparison 3 Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose, Outcome 4 Gestational weight gain (kg).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.4

Comparison 3 Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose, Outcome 4 Gestational weight gain (kg).

Comparison 3 Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose, Outcome 5 Use of additional pharmacotherapy.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.5

Comparison 3 Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose, Outcome 5 Use of additional pharmacotherapy.

Comparison 3 Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose, Outcome 6 Glycaemic control: HbA1c at 32 to 36 weeks (%).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.6

Comparison 3 Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose, Outcome 6 Glycaemic control: HbA1c at 32 to 36 weeks (%).

Comparison 3 Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose, Outcome 7 Stillbirth.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.7

Comparison 3 Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose, Outcome 7 Stillbirth.

Comparison 3 Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose, Outcome 8 Neonatal death.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.8

Comparison 3 Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose, Outcome 8 Neonatal death.

Comparison 3 Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose, Outcome 9 Gestational age at birth (weeks).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.9

Comparison 3 Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose, Outcome 9 Gestational age at birth (weeks).

Comparison 3 Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose, Outcome 10 Preterm birth < 37 weeks.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.10

Comparison 3 Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose, Outcome 10 Preterm birth < 37 weeks.

Comparison 3 Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose, Outcome 11 Macrosomia.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.11

Comparison 3 Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose, Outcome 11 Macrosomia.

Comparison 3 Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose, Outcome 12 Small‐for‐gestational age.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.12

Comparison 3 Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose, Outcome 12 Small‐for‐gestational age.

Comparison 3 Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose, Outcome 13 Birthweight (g).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.13

Comparison 3 Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose, Outcome 13 Birthweight (g).

Comparison 3 Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose, Outcome 14 Neonatal hypoglycaemia.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.14

Comparison 3 Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose, Outcome 14 Neonatal hypoglycaemia.

Comparison 3 Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose, Outcome 15 Hyperbilirubinaemia or jaundice.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.15

Comparison 3 Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose, Outcome 15 Hyperbilirubinaemia or jaundice.

Comparison 3 Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose, Outcome 16 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.16

Comparison 3 Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose, Outcome 16 Neonatal intensive care unit admission.

Comparison 3 Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose, Outcome 17 Length of postnatal stay (baby): length of stay in neonatal intensive care unit (days).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 3.17

Comparison 3 Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose, Outcome 17 Length of postnatal stay (baby): length of stay in neonatal intensive care unit (days).

Comparison 4 Modem versus telephone transmission for glucose monitoring, Outcome 1 Views of the intervention.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Modem versus telephone transmission for glucose monitoring, Outcome 1 Views of the intervention.

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 1 Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: pre‐eclampsia.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 1 Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: pre‐eclampsia.

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 2 Caesarean section.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 2 Caesarean section.

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 3 Large‐for‐gestational age.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.3

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 3 Large‐for‐gestational age.

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 4 Perineal trauma.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.4

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 4 Perineal trauma.

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 5 Gestational weight gain (kg).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.5

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 5 Gestational weight gain (kg).

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 6 Adherence to the intervention: compliance with schedule (%).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.6

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 6 Adherence to the intervention: compliance with schedule (%).

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 7 Use of additional pharmacotherapy.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.7

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 7 Use of additional pharmacotherapy.

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 8 Glycaemic control: change in HbA1c (%).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.8

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 8 Glycaemic control: change in HbA1c (%).

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 9 Glycaemic control: hospitalisation for glycaemic control.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.9

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 9 Glycaemic control: hospitalisation for glycaemic control.

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 10 Glycaemic control: success in glycaemic control (%).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.10

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 10 Glycaemic control: success in glycaemic control (%).

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 11 Stillbirth.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.11

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 11 Stillbirth.

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 12 Gestational age at birth (weeks).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.12

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 12 Gestational age at birth (weeks).

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 13 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.13

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 13 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes.

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 14 Macrosomia.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.14

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 14 Macrosomia.

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 15 Small‐for‐gestational age.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.15

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 15 Small‐for‐gestational age.

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 16 Birthweight (g).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.16

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 16 Birthweight (g).

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 17 Shoulder dystocia.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.17

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 17 Shoulder dystocia.

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 18 Nerve palsies.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.18

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 18 Nerve palsies.

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 19 Bone fractures.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.19

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 19 Bone fractures.

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 20 Neonatal hypoglycaemia.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.20

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 20 Neonatal hypoglycaemia.

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 21 Hyperbilirubinaemia or jaundice.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 5.21

Comparison 5 Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring, Outcome 21 Hyperbilirubinaemia or jaundice.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring for gestational diabetes during pregnancy (effect on mother)

Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring for gestational diabetes during pregnancy (effect on mother)

Patient or population: women with gestational diabetes mellitus
Setting: 2 RCTs in USA; 1 RCT each in Italy, Ireland and Spain set in clinics or hospitals
Intervention: telemedicine
Comparison: standard care

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with standard care

Risk with telemedicine

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy including pre‐eclampsia, gestational hypertension and eclampsia

Study population

RR 1.49
(0.69 to 3.20)

275
(4 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW1,2

58 per 1000

87 per 1000
(40 to 187)

Caesarean section

Study population

RR 1.05
(0.72 to 1.53)

478
(5 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW3,4,5

444 per 1000

467 per 1000
(320 to 680)

Development of type 2 diabetes

Study population

not estimable

(0 RCTs)

None of the included RCTs reported this outcome

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Induction of labour

Study population

RR 1.06
(0.63 to 1.77)

47
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 2,6

538 per 1000

571 per 1000
(339 to 953)

Perineal trauma

Study population

Not estimable

(0 RCTs)

None of the included RCTs reported this outcome

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Postnatal depression

Study population

Not estimable

(0 RCTs)

None of the included RCTs reported this outcome

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Postnatal weight retention or return to pre‐pregnancy weight

Study population

Not estimable

(0 RCTs)

None of the included RCTs reported this outcome

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

*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; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: 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 quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1Study limitations (downgraded 1 level): 4 RCTs with potentially serious or very serious design limitations
2Imprecision (downgraded 2 levels): wide confidence interval crossing the line of no effect, few events and small sample size(s)
3Study limitations (downgraded 2 levels): 5 RCTs with potentially serious or very serious design limitations (> 40% of weight from 2 RCTs with serious or very serious design limitations)
4Imprecision (downgraded 1 level): wide confidence interval crossing the line of no effect
5Inconsistency (downgraded 1 level): statistical heterogeneity (I² = 62%)
6Study limitations (downgraded 1 level): 1 RCT with potentially serious design limitations

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring for gestational diabetes during pregnancy (effect on mother)
Summary of findings 2. Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring in gestational diabetes during pregnancy (effect on child)

Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring in gestational diabetes during pregnancy (effect on child)

Patient or population: women with gestational diabetes mellitus
Setting: 2 RCTs in USA; 1 RCT each in Italy, Ireland, and Spain set in clinics or hospitals
Intervention: telemedicine
Comparison: standard care

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with standard care

Risk with telemedicine

Perinatal mortality (including stillbirth or neonatal death)

Study population

131
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW1,2

There were no perinatal deaths in 2 RCTs

See comment

See comment

Large‐for‐gestational age

Study population

RR 1.41
(0.76 to 2.64)

228
(3 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW3,4

126 per 1000

178 per 1000
(96 to 333)

Death or serious morbidity composite

Study population

RR 1.06
(0.68 to 1.66)

57
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW4,5

560 per 1000

594 per 1000
(381 to 930)

Neurosensory disability

Study population

Not estimable

(0 RCTS)

None of the included RCTs reported this outcome

0 per 100

0 per 1000

(0 to 0)

Hypoglycaemia

Study population

RR 1.14
(0.48 to 2.72)

198
(3 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW4,6

82 per 100

94 per 1000
(40 to 224)

Adiposity (e.g. BMI, skinfold thickness, fat mass)

Study population

Not estimable

(0 RCTs)

None of the included RCTs reported this outcome

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Type 2 diabetes

Study population

Not estimable

(0 RCTs)

None of the included RCTs reported this outcome

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

*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).
BMI: body mass index;CI: confidence interval; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: 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 quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1Study limitations (downgraded 1 level): 2 RCTs with potentially serious design limitations
2Imprecision (downgraded 2 levels): no events and small sample size(s)
3Study limitations (downgraded 2 levels): 2 RCTs with potentially serious design limitations, and 1 RCT with serious or very serious design limitations (> 25% of weight)
4Imprecision (downgraded 2 levels): wide confidence interval crossing the line of no effect, (few events), small sample size(s)
5Study limitations (downgraded 1 level): 1 RCT with potentially serious design limitations
6Study limitations (downgraded 1 level): 2 RCTs with potentially serious design limitations, and 1 RCT with serious or very serious design limitations (< 7% of weight)

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings 2. Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring in gestational diabetes during pregnancy (effect on child)
Summary of findings 3. Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring for gestational diabetes during pregnancy (effect on mother)

Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring for gestational diabetes during pregnancy (effect on mother)

Patient or population: women with gestational diabetes mellitus
Setting: 1 RCT in Canda, 1 RCT in USA set in clinics or hospitals

Intervention: self‐monitoring of glucose
Comparison: periodic glucose monitoring

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with periodic glucose monitoring

Risk with self‐monitoring of glucose

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: pre‐eclampsia

Study population

RR 0.17
(0.01 to 3.49)

58
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW1,2

74 per 1000

13 per 1000
(1 to 259)

Caesarean section

Study population

RR 1.18
(0.61 to 2.27)

400
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW3,4,5

228 per 1000

270 per 1000
(139 to 519)

Development of type 2 diabetes

Study population

Not estimable

(0 RCTs)

Neither of the included RCTs reported this outcome

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Induction of labour

Study population

Not estimable

(0 RCTs)

Neither of the RCTs reported this outcome

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Perineal trauma

Study population

Not estimable

(0 RCTs)

Neither of the included RCTs reported this outcome

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Postnatal depression

Study population

Not estimable

(0 RCTs)

Neither of the included RCTs reported this outcome

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Postnatal weight retention or return to pre‐pregnancy weight

Study population

Not estimable

(0 RCTs)

Neither of the included RCTs reported this outcome

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

*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; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: 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 quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1Study limitations (downgraded 1 level): 1 RCT with potentially serious design limitations
2Imprecision (downgraded 2 levels): wide confidence interval crossing the line of no effect, few events and small sample size
3Study limitations (downgraded 1 level): 2 RCTs with potentially serious design limitations
4Imprecision (downgraded 1 level): wide confidence interval crossing the line of no effect
5Inconsistency: did not downgraded for statistical heterogeneity (I² = 49%)

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings 3. Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring for gestational diabetes during pregnancy (effect on mother)
Summary of findings 4. Self‐monitoring versus periodic for glucose monitoring for gestation diabetes during pregnancy (effect on child)

Self‐monitoring versus periodic for glucose monitoring for gestation diabetes during pregnancy (effect on child)

Patient or population: women with gestational diabetes mellitus
Setting: 1 RCT in Canda, 1 RCT in USA set in clinics or hospitals

Intervention: self‐monitoring of glucose
Comparison: periodic glucose monitoring

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with periodic glucose monitoring

Risk with self‐monitoring of glucose

Perinatal mortality (stillbirth or neonatal death)

Study population

RR 1.54
(0.21 to 11.24)

400
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW1,2

5 per 1000

8 per 1000
(1 to 57)

Large‐for‐gestational age

Study population

RR 0.82
(0.50 to 1.37)

400
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW1,3

142 per 1000

117 per 1000
(71 to 195)

Death or serious morbidity composite

Study population

Not estimable

(0 RCTs)

Neither of the included RCTs reported this outcome

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Neurosensory disability

Study population

Not estimable

(0 RCTs)

Neither of the included RCTs reported this outcome

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Hypoglycaemia

Study population

RR 0.64
(0.39 to 1.06)

391
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW1,3

173 per 1000

111 per 1000
(67 to 183)

Adiposity (e.g. BMI, skinfold thickness, fat mass)

Study population

Not estimable

(0 RCTs)

Neither of the included RCTs reported this outcome

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Type 2 diabetes

Study population

Not estimable

(0 RCTs)

Neither of the included RCTs reported this outcome

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

*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).
BMI: body mass index;CI: confidence interval; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: 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 quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1Study limitations (downgraded 1 level): 2 RCTs with potentially serious design limitations
2Imprecision (downgraded 2 levels): wide confidence interval crossing the line of no effect and few events
3Imprecision (downgraded 1 level): wide confidence interval crossing the line of no effect

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings 4. Self‐monitoring versus periodic for glucose monitoring for gestation diabetes during pregnancy (effect on child)
Summary of findings 5. Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose for gestational diabetes during pregnancy (effect on mother)

Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose for gestational diabetes during pregnancy (effect on mother)

Patient or population: women with gestational diabetes mellitus
Setting: 1 RCT in Finland, 1 RCT in China set in clinics or hospitals

Intervention: continuous glucose monitoring system
Comparison: self‐monitoring of glucose

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with self‐monitoring of glucose

Risk with continuous glucose monitoring system

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy

Study population

Not estimable

(0 RCTs)

Neither of the included RCTs reported this outcome

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Caesarean section

Study population

RR 0.91
(0.68 to 1.20)

179
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
VERY LOW1,2

500 per 1000

455 per 1000
(340 to 600)

Development of type 2 diabetes

Study population

Not estimable

(0 RCTs)

Neither of the included RCTs reported this outcome

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Induction of labour

Study population

Not estimable

(0 RCTs)

Neither of the included RCTs reported this outcome

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Perineal trauma

Study population

Not estimable

(0 RCTs)

Neither of the included RCTs reported this outcome

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Postnatal depression

Study population

Not estimable

(0 RCTs)

Neither of the included RCTs reported this outcome

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Postnatal weight retention or return to pre‐pregnancy weight

Study population

Not estimable

(0 RCTs)

Neither of the included RCTs reported this outcome

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

*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; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: 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 quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1Study limitations (downgraded 1 level): 2 RCTs with potentially serious design limitations
2Inconsistency (downgraded 1 level): wide confidence interval crossing the line of no effect and small sample sizes

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings 5. Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose for gestational diabetes during pregnancy (effect on mother)
Summary of findings 6. Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose for gestational diabetes during pregnancy (effect on child)

Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose for gestational diabetes during pregnancy (effect on child)

Patient or population: women with gestational diabetes mellitus
Setting: 1 RCT in Finland, 1 RCT in China set in clinics or hospitals

Intervention: continuous glucose monitoring system
Comparison: self‐monitoring of glucose

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with self‐monitoring of glucose

Risk with continuous glucose monitoring system

Perinatal mortality (stillbirth or neonatal death)

Study population

179
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
VERY LOW1,2

There were no perinatal deaths in the 2 RCTs

See comment

See comment

Large‐for‐gestational age

Study population

RR 0.67
(0.43 to 1.05)

106
(1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW3,4

527 per 1000

353 per 1000
(227 to 554)

Death or serious morbidity composite

Study population

Not estimable

(0 RCTs)

Neither of the included RCTs reported this outcome

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Neurosensory disability

Study population

Not estimable

(0 RCTs)

Neither of the included RCTs reported this outcome

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Hypoglycaemia

Study population

RR 0.79
(0.35 to 1.78)

179
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW1,5

130 per 1000

103 per 1000
(46 to 232)

Adiposity (e.g. BMI, skinfold thickness, fat mass)

Study population

Not estimable

(0 RCTs)

Neither of the included RCTs reported this outcome

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Type 2 diabetes

Study population

Not estimable

(0 RCTs)

Neither of the included RCTs reported this outcome

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

*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).
BMI: body mass index; CI: confidence interval; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: 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 quality: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

1Study limitations (downgraded 1 level): 2 RCTs with potentially serious design limitations
2Inconsistency (downgraded 2 levels): no events and small sample sizes
3Study limitations (downgraded 1 level): 1 RCT with potentially serious design limitations
4Inconsistency (downgraded 2 levels): wide confidence interval crossing the line of no effect and small sample size
5Inconsistency (downgraded 2 levels): wide confidence interval crossing the line of no effect, few events and small sample sizes

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings 6. Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose for gestational diabetes during pregnancy (effect on child)
Comparison 1. Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy Show forest plot

4

275

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.49 [0.69, 3.20]

1.1 Pre‐eclampsia, pregnancy‐induced hypertension

3

178

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.29 [0.58, 2.89]

1.2 Pregnancy‐induced hypertension

1

97

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.9 [0.24, 99.48]

2 Caesarean section Show forest plot

5

478

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.05 [0.72, 1.53]

3 Perinatal mortality Show forest plot

2

131

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Large‐for‐gestational age Show forest plot

3

228

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.41 [0.76, 2.64]

5 Death or serious morbidity composite Show forest plot

1

57

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.68, 1.66]

6 Operative vaginal birth (not a prespecified outcome) Show forest plot

1

47

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.50 [0.11, 2.30]

7 Induction of labour Show forest plot

1

47

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.63, 1.77]

8 Placental abruption Show forest plot

2

154

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.12, 6.42]

9 Gestational weight gain (kg) Show forest plot

2

300

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.47 [‐1.50, 0.55]

10 Weight at 36 weeks (kg) Show forest plot

1

44

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.5 [‐5.69, 16.69]

11 Adherence to the intervention Show forest plot

3

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

11.1 Appointments attended (%)

1

47

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

5.20 [‐2.27, 12.67]

11.2 Average daily self‐monitoring of blood glucose frequency: meter memory

1

44

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.5 [‐0.42, 1.42]

11.3 Average daily self‐monitoring of blood glucose frequency: diary

1

45

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.10 [‐0.66, 0.86]

11.4 Frequency of monitoring (number of data points)

1

57

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

21.10 [‐9.33, 51.53]

11.5 Frequency of monitoring (number of data sets)

1

74

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.20 [‐12.32, 14.72]

12 Sense of well‐being and quality of life: DES: Diabetes Empowerment Scale Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

12.1 Total

1

57

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.40 [0.14, 0.66]

12.2 Subscale 1: managing the psychosocial aspects of diabetes

1

57

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.5 [0.21, 0.79]

12.3 Subscale 2: assessing dissatisfaction and readiness to change

1

57

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.40 [0.14, 0.66]

12.4 Subscale 3: setting and achieving diabetes goals

1

57

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.30 [‐0.04, 0.64]

13 Use of additional pharmacotherapy Show forest plot

5

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

13.1 Insulin

5

484

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.52 [1.18, 1.96]

13.2 Oral agents

3

184

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.50, 1.42]

13.3 Insulin and oral agents

1

47

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.24 [0.19, 8.06]

14 Maternal hypoglycaemia Show forest plot

1

203

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

15 Maternal hypoglycaemia: self‐monitored blood glucose episodes hypoglycaemic (< 3.9 mmol/L) (%) Show forest plot

1

44

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.10 [‐1.64, 1.44]

16 Glycaemic control: HbA1c (%) Show forest plot

3

357

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.15 [‐0.26, ‐0.04]

17 Glycaemic control: HbA1c < 5.8% Show forest plot

1

97

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.0 [0.96, 1.04]

18 Glycaemic control: HbA1c at 36 weeks (mmol/mol) Show forest plot

1

30

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.20 [‐2.03, 2.43]

19 Glycaemic control: self‐monitored blood glucose (mmol/L) Show forest plot

1

44

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [‐0.30, 0.30]

20 Glycaemic control: fasting and 2‐hour post‐prandial blood glucose (mg/dL) Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

20.1 Fasting blood glucose (mg/dL)

2

131

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.50 [‐5.38, 4.38]

20.2 2‐hour post‐prandial blood glucose (mg/dL)

2

131

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.21 [‐5.09, 4.67]

21 Stillbirth Show forest plot

3

178

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.41 [0.02, 9.55]

22 Neonatal death Show forest plot

2

131

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

23 Gestational age at birth (weeks) Show forest plot

5

478

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.10 [‐0.18, 0.37]

24 Preterm birth < 37 weeks Show forest plot

4

275

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.66 [0.31, 1.39]

25 Macrosomia Show forest plot

2

249

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.43 [0.27, 7.52]

26 Small‐for‐gestational age Show forest plot

1

97

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

27 Birthweight (g) Show forest plot

5

477

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

63.13 [‐32.32, 158.59]

28 Head circumference (cm) Show forest plot

1

45

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.70 [0.02, 1.38]

29 Length (cm) Show forest plot

1

42

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.20 [‐1.34, 1.74]

30 Shoulder dystocia Show forest plot

2

142

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.01, 7.83]

31 Respiratory distress syndrome Show forest plot

3

176

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.63 [0.26, 1.49]

32 Neonatal hypoglycaemia Show forest plot

3

198

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.14 [0.48, 2.72]

33 Hyperbilirubinaemia or jaundice Show forest plot

3

176

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.09 [0.59, 2.01]

34 Hypocalcaemia Show forest plot

1

97

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

35 Polycythaemia Show forest plot

1

97

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

36 Number of hospital or health professional visits: face‐to‐face visits Show forest plot

1

97

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.36 [‐0.92, 0.20]

37 Number of hospital or health professional visits: unscheduled face‐to‐face visits Show forest plot

1

97

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.62 [‐1.05, ‐0.19]

38 Neonatal intensive care unit admission Show forest plot

3

176

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.05 [0.62, 1.79]

39 'Neonatal morbidity' (neonatal complications: e.g. hypoglycaemia, hyperbilirubinaemia, respiratory distress syndrome, shoulder dystocia, malformations) (not a prespecified outcome) Show forest plot

1

203

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.52 [0.53, 4.38]

40 'Maternal morbidity' (maternal complications: gestational hypertension, pre‐eclampsia, eclampsia, hypoglycaemic episodes) (not a prespecified outcome) Show forest plot

1

203

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.49 [0.13, 1.79]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. Telemedicine versus standard care for glucose monitoring
Comparison 2. Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: pre‐eclampsia Show forest plot

1

58

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.18 [0.01, 3.49]

2 Caesarean section Show forest plot

2

400

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

1.18 [0.61, 2.27]

3 Perinatal mortality Show forest plot

2

400

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.54 [0.21, 11.24]

4 Large‐for‐gestational age Show forest plot

2

400

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.82 [0.50, 1.37]

5 Placental abruption Show forest plot

1

58

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.63 [0.11, 61.88]

6 Postpartum haemorrhage Show forest plot

1

58

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.63 [0.11, 61.88]

7 Gestational weight gain (kg/week) Show forest plot

1

342

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.1 [‐0.15, ‐0.05]

7.1 1‐hour post‐breakfast glucose < 7.8 mmol/L

1

227

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.10 [‐0.17, ‐0.03]

7.2 1‐hour post‐breakfast glucose ≥ 7.8 mmol/L

1

115

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.10 [‐0.17, ‐0.03]

8 Gestational weight gain (lb) Show forest plot

1

58

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐5.5 [‐13.57, 2.57]

9 Adherence to the intervention: < 70% adherence to home blood glucose measurements or diabetes outpatient clinic appointments Show forest plot

1

342

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.32, 1.71]

10 Adherence to the intervention: Dietary Compliance Questionnaire Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

10.1 Total compliance score

1

58

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.5 [‐0.47, 3.47]

10.2 Mean compliance score

1

58

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [‐0.40, 0.40]

11 Sense of well‐being and quality of life: Diabetes Empowerment Scale delta scores Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

11.1 Overall

1

47

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.70 [‐2.08, 9.48]

11.2 Setting goals

1

47

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.65 [‐1.10, 2.40]

11.3 Solving problems

1

47

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.35 [‐0.37, 3.07]

11.4 Motivating oneself

1

47

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.63 [‐0.89, 2.15]

11.5 Obtaining support

1

47

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [‐0.09, 1.97]

11.6 Making decisions

1

47

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.01 [‐1.39, 1.41]

12 Sense of well‐being and quality of life: emotional adjustment: Appraisal of Diabetes Scale delta scores Show forest plot

1

47

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.20 [‐0.88, 3.28]

13 Use of additional pharmacotherapy: insulin Show forest plot

2

400

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.31 [0.69, 2.48]

14 Glycaemic control: pre‐prandial blood glucose (mmol/L) Show forest plot

2

360

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.06 [‐0.08, 0.19]

14.1 Breakfast glucose < 7.8 mmol/L

1

192

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.10 [‐0.03, 0.23]

14.2 Breakfast glucose ≥ 7.8 mmol/L

1

110

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.10 [‐0.07, 0.27]

14.3 All women

1

58

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.21 [‐0.54, 0.12]

15 Glycaemic control: 1‐hour post‐prandial blood glucose (mmol/L) Show forest plot

2

395

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.09 [‐0.60, 0.42]

15.1 1‐hour post‐breakfast glucose > 7.8 mmol/L

1

222

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [‐0.19, 0.19]

15.2 1‐hour post‐breakfast glucose ≥ 7.8 mmol/L

1

115

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.60 [‐0.90, ‐0.30]

15.3 All women

1

58

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.47 [‐0.12, 1.06]

16 Stillbirth Show forest plot

2

400

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.54 [0.21, 11.24]

17 Neonatal death Show forest plot

1

58

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

18 Gestational age at birth (weeks) Show forest plot

2

400

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.03 [‐0.32, 0.27]

18.1 1‐hour post‐breakfast glucose < 7.8 mmol/L

1

227

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.20 [‐0.59, 0.19]

18.2 1‐hour post‐breakfast glucose ≥ 7.8 mmol/L

1

115

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.20 [‐0.31, 0.71]

18.3 All neonates

1

58

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.30 [‐0.78, 1.38]

19 Macrosomia Show forest plot

1

342

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.53, 1.67]

20 Small‐for‐gestational age Show forest plot

1

342

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.19 [0.53, 2.67]

21 Birthweight (kg) Show forest plot

2

400

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐40.22 [‐148.37, 67.93]

21.1 1‐hour post‐breakfast glucose < 7.8 mmol/L

1

227

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐10.0 [‐145.47, 125.47]

21.2 1‐hour post‐breakfast glucose ≥ 7.8 mmol/L

1

115

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐70.0 [‐283.34, 143.34]

21.3 All neonates

1

58

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐150.0 [‐482.61, 182.61]

22 Birthweight (percentile) Show forest plot

1

342

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.67 [‐6.75, 5.42]

22.1 1‐hour post‐breakfast glucose < 7.8 mmol/L

1

227

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.5 [‐5.71, 8.71]

22.2 1‐hour post‐breakfast glucose ≥ 7.8 mmol/L

1

115

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐6.00 [‐17.32, 5.32]

23 Shoulder dystocia Show forest plot

1

342

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.25 [0.03, 2.19]

24 Neonatal hypoglycaemia Show forest plot

2

391

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.64 [0.39, 1.06]

25 Hyperbilirubinaemia or jaundice Show forest plot

2

370

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.63 [0.39, 1.04]

26 Number of antenatal visits or admissions: prenatal visits with the diabetes team Show forest plot

1

58

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.20 [‐1.09, 1.49]

27 Neonatal intensive care unit admission Show forest plot

1

58

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.13, 5.77]

28 'Birth trauma' (not a prespecified outcome) Show forest plot

1

58

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.06, 13.27]

29 'Respiratory complications' (not a prespecified outcome) Show forest plot

1

58

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.06, 13.27]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 2. Self‐monitoring versus periodic glucose monitoring
Comparison 3. Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Caesarean section Show forest plot

2

179

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.91 [0.68, 1.20]

2 Perinatal mortality Show forest plot

2

179

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Large‐for‐gestational age Show forest plot

1

106

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.67 [0.43, 1.05]

4 Gestational weight gain (kg) Show forest plot

2

179

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.26 [‐2.28, ‐0.24]

5 Use of additional pharmacotherapy Show forest plot

2

179

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.86 [1.47, 5.56]

6 Glycaemic control: HbA1c at 32 to 36 weeks (%) Show forest plot

1

106

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.10 [‐0.24, 0.04]

7 Stillbirth Show forest plot

2

179

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8 Neonatal death Show forest plot

2

179

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

9 Gestational age at birth (weeks) Show forest plot

2

179

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.17 [‐0.52, 0.19]

10 Preterm birth < 37 weeks Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

11 Macrosomia Show forest plot

2

179

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.35, 2.05]

12 Small‐for‐gestational age Show forest plot

1

106

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.08 [0.16, 7.37]

13 Birthweight (g) Show forest plot

2

179

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐110.17 [‐264.73, 44.39]

14 Neonatal hypoglycaemia Show forest plot

2

179

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.79 [0.35, 1.78]

15 Hyperbilirubinaemia or jaundice Show forest plot

1

73

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.28, 3.80]

16 Neonatal intensive care unit admission Show forest plot

1

73

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.65 [0.29, 1.50]

17 Length of postnatal stay (baby): length of stay in neonatal intensive care unit (days) Show forest plot

1

18

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.83 [‐2.35, 0.69]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 3. Continuous glucose monitoring system versus self‐monitoring of glucose
Comparison 4. Modem versus telephone transmission for glucose monitoring

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Views of the intervention Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Overall, I am satisfied with how easy it is to use Accu‐Chek Complete, Acculink

1

38

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.11 [0.90, 1.38]

1.2 I feel comfortable using the Accu‐Chek Complete, Acculink

1

38

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.66, 1.41]

1.3 Whenever I made a mistake using the Accu‐Chek Complete, Acculink, I could recover easily and quickly

1

38

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.92 [0.67, 1.25]

1.4 It was easy to learn to use the Accu‐Chek Complete, Acculink

1

38

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.05 [0.82, 1.34]

1.5 The written material provided for the Accu‐Chek Complete was easy to understand

1

38

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.18 [0.92, 1.51]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 4. Modem versus telephone transmission for glucose monitoring
Comparison 5. Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: pre‐eclampsia Show forest plot

1

66

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.0 [0.15, 6.68]

2 Caesarean section Show forest plot

1

66

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.62 [0.29, 1.29]

3 Large‐for‐gestational age Show forest plot

1

66

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.29 [0.11, 0.78]

4 Perineal trauma Show forest plot

1

66

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.38 [0.11, 1.29]

5 Gestational weight gain (kg) Show forest plot

1

66

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.20 [‐2.81, 2.41]

6 Adherence to the intervention: compliance with schedule (%) Show forest plot

1

66

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐3.0 [‐3.99, ‐2.01]

7 Use of additional pharmacotherapy Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7.1 Insulin dose (during the last 4 weeks of pregnancy, including regular and intermediate acting) (units/day)

1

66

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

23.60 [11.17, 36.03]

7.2 Insulin dose (during the last 4 weeks of pregnancy, including regular and intermediate acting) (units/kg)

1

66

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.20 [0.12, 0.28]

8 Glycaemic control: change in HbA1c (%) Show forest plot

1

66

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.4 [‐3.33, ‐1.47]

9 Glycaemic control: hospitalisation for glycaemic control Show forest plot

1

66

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.33 [0.32, 5.50]

10 Glycaemic control: success in glycaemic control (%) Show forest plot

1

66

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.0 [‐0.26, 4.26]

11 Stillbirth Show forest plot

1

66

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.01, 7.90]

12 Gestational age at birth (weeks) Show forest plot

1

66

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.30 [‐1.08, 1.68]

13 Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes Show forest plot

1

66

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.04, 3.04]

14 Macrosomia Show forest plot

1

66

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.25 [0.08, 0.81]

15 Small‐for‐gestational age Show forest plot

1

66

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.0 [0.13, 71.07]

16 Birthweight (g) Show forest plot

1

66

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐379.0 [‐650.79, ‐107.21]

17 Shoulder dystocia Show forest plot

1

66

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.17 [0.02, 1.31]

18 Nerve palsies Show forest plot

1

66

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.5 [0.05, 5.25]

19 Bone fractures Show forest plot

1

66

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.0 [0.07, 15.33]

20 Neonatal hypoglycaemia Show forest plot

1

66

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.14 [0.02, 1.10]

21 Hyperbilirubinaemia or jaundice Show forest plot

1

66

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.75 [0.18, 3.09]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 5. Postprandial versus preprandial glucose monitoring