Question · asked by 1 review
Glibenclamide vs acarbose ‐ neonatal outcomes: Large‐for‐gestational age
- Population
- women with gestational diabetes mellitus
- Intervention
- Glibenclamide
- Comparison
- acarbose ‐ neonatal outcomes
- Outcome
- Large‐for‐gestational age
Glibenclamide showed no clear difference in large‐for‐gestational age compared with acarbose ‐ neonatal outcomes (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Glibenclamide vs acarbose ‐ neonatal outcomes Large‐for‐gestational age · women with gestational diabetes Glibenclamide showed no clear difference in large‐for‐gestational age compared with acarbose ‐ neonatal outcomes (low certainty). Oral anti‐diabetic pharmacological therapies for the treatment of women with gestational diabetes (2017) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 2.38 [0.54, 10.46] | 1 study · 43 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oral anti‐diabetic pharmacological therapies for the treatment of women with gestational diabetes 2017 · 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.