Pre‐prandial vs post‐prandial glucose monitoring
- Techniques of monitoring blood glucose during pregnancy for women with pre‐existing diabetes 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyno estimate extracted0 studies · 0 participantsGRADE not reported
Technique of BP measurement: Korotkoff phase IV showed no clear difference in pre‐eclampsia compared with korotkoff phase V to represent diastolic BP (low certainty).
It is very uncertain whether pre‐prandial changes caesarean section compared with post‐prandial glucose monitoring (very low certainty).
It is very uncertain whether pre‐prandial changes large‐for‐gestational age compared with post‐prandial glucose monitoring (very low certainty).
It is very uncertain whether pre‐prandial changes perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality) compared with post‐prandial glucose monitoring (very low certainty).
It is very uncertain whether pre‐mixed insulin (70 NPH/30 REG) changes macrosomia compared with self‐mixed split dose insulin (Different insulin regimens with… (very low certainty).
It is very uncertain whether pre‐mixed insulin (70 NPH/30 REG) changes caesarean section 4 compared with self‐mixed split dose insulin (Different insulin regimens with… (very low certainty).
Probiotics leads to higher hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (pre‐eclampsia) compared with placebo (high certainty).
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
Setting of BP measurement: self‐measurement showed no clear difference in pre‐eclampsia compared with conventional clinic measurement (low certainty).
Heparin plus aspirin showed no clear difference in pre‐eclampsia compared with aspirin (low certainty).
It is very uncertain whether aspirin changes pre‐eclampsia compared with placebo (very low certainty).
The intervention leads to lower proteinuric pre‐eclampsia (high certainty).
The intervention leads to lower pregnancy with serious adverse outcome (composite including maternal… (high certainty).