Intensity of glycaemic control for women with gestational diabetes mellitus ‐ strict glycaemic targets vs less‐tight glycaemic targets (child (as neonate, child, adult) outcomes): Large‐for‐gestational age
- Population
- Children (as neonate, child, adult) of women with GDM
- Intervention
- Intensity of glycaemic control for women with gestational diabetes mellitus ‐ strict glycaemic targets
- Comparison
- less‐tight glycaemic targets (child (as neonate, child, adult) outcomes)
- Outcome
- Large‐for‐gestational age
Intensity of glycaemic control for women with gestational diabetes… showed no clear difference in large‐for‐gestational‐age compared with less‐tight glycaemic targets (child (as neonate, child, adult)… (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Intensity of glycaemic control for women with gestational diabetes mellitus: tight glycaemic targets vs less‐tight glycaemic targets (child (as neonate, child, adult) outcomes) Large‐for‐gestational‐age · children (as neonate, child, adult) of women with gestational diabetes mellitus Intensity of glycaemic control for women with gestational diabetes… showed no clear difference in large‐for‐gestational‐age compared with less‐tight glycaemic targets (child (as neonate, child, adult)… (moderate certainty). Different intensities of glycaemic control for women with gestational diabetes mellitus (2023) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.96 [0.72, 1.29] | 3 studies · 1556 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Different intensities of glycaemic control for women with gestational diabetes mellitus 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | Not extracted | Not assessed |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.