Cargando…
Diabetes and anti-diabetic interventions and the risk of gynaecological and obstetric morbidity: an umbrella review of the literature
BACKGROUND: Diabetes has reached epidemic proportions in recent years with serious health ramifications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the strength and validity of associations between diabetes and anti-diabetic interventions and the risk of any type of gynaecological or obstetric conditions...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10114404/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37072764 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-02758-1 |
_version_ | 1785028008818507776 |
---|---|
author | Semertzidou, Anita Grout-Smith, Harriet Kalliala, Ilkka Garg, Akanksha Terzidou, Vasso Marchesi, Julian MacIntyre, David Bennett, Phillip Tsilidis, Konstantinos Kyrgiou, Maria |
author_facet | Semertzidou, Anita Grout-Smith, Harriet Kalliala, Ilkka Garg, Akanksha Terzidou, Vasso Marchesi, Julian MacIntyre, David Bennett, Phillip Tsilidis, Konstantinos Kyrgiou, Maria |
author_sort | Semertzidou, Anita |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Diabetes has reached epidemic proportions in recent years with serious health ramifications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the strength and validity of associations between diabetes and anti-diabetic interventions and the risk of any type of gynaecological or obstetric conditions. METHODS: Design: Umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Data sources: PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, manual screening of references. Eligibility criteria: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational and interventional studies investigating the relationship between diabetes and anti-diabetic interventions with gynaecological or obstetric outcomes. Meta-analyses that did not include complete data from individual studies, such as relative risk, 95% confidence intervals, number of cases/controls, or total population were excluded. Data analysis: The evidence from meta-analyses of observational studies was graded as strong, highly suggestive, suggestive or weak according to criteria comprising the random effects estimate of meta-analyses and their largest study, the number of cases, 95% prediction intervals, I(2) heterogeneity index between studies, excess significance bias, small study effect and sensitivity analysis using credibility ceilings. Interventional meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials were assessed separately based on the statistical significance of reported associations, the risk of bias and quality of evidence (GRADE) of included meta-analyses. RESULTS: A total of 117 meta-analyses of observational cohort studies and 200 meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials that evaluated 317 outcomes were included. Strong or highly suggestive evidence only supported a positive association between gestational diabetes and caesarean section, large for gestational age babies, major congenital malformations and heart defects and an inverse relationship between metformin use and ovarian cancer incidence. Only a fifth of the randomised controlled trials investigating the effect of anti-diabetic interventions on women’s health reached statistical significance and highlighted metformin as a more effective agent than insulin on risk reduction of adverse obstetric outcomes in both gestational and pre-gestational diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Gestational diabetes appears to be strongly associated with a high risk of caesarean section and large for gestational age babies. Weaker associations were demonstrated between diabetes and anti-diabetic interventions with other obstetric and gynaecological outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (OSF) (Registration https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9G6AB). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12916-023-02758-1. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10114404 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-101144042023-04-20 Diabetes and anti-diabetic interventions and the risk of gynaecological and obstetric morbidity: an umbrella review of the literature Semertzidou, Anita Grout-Smith, Harriet Kalliala, Ilkka Garg, Akanksha Terzidou, Vasso Marchesi, Julian MacIntyre, David Bennett, Phillip Tsilidis, Konstantinos Kyrgiou, Maria BMC Med Research Article BACKGROUND: Diabetes has reached epidemic proportions in recent years with serious health ramifications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the strength and validity of associations between diabetes and anti-diabetic interventions and the risk of any type of gynaecological or obstetric conditions. METHODS: Design: Umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Data sources: PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, manual screening of references. Eligibility criteria: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational and interventional studies investigating the relationship between diabetes and anti-diabetic interventions with gynaecological or obstetric outcomes. Meta-analyses that did not include complete data from individual studies, such as relative risk, 95% confidence intervals, number of cases/controls, or total population were excluded. Data analysis: The evidence from meta-analyses of observational studies was graded as strong, highly suggestive, suggestive or weak according to criteria comprising the random effects estimate of meta-analyses and their largest study, the number of cases, 95% prediction intervals, I(2) heterogeneity index between studies, excess significance bias, small study effect and sensitivity analysis using credibility ceilings. Interventional meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials were assessed separately based on the statistical significance of reported associations, the risk of bias and quality of evidence (GRADE) of included meta-analyses. RESULTS: A total of 117 meta-analyses of observational cohort studies and 200 meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials that evaluated 317 outcomes were included. Strong or highly suggestive evidence only supported a positive association between gestational diabetes and caesarean section, large for gestational age babies, major congenital malformations and heart defects and an inverse relationship between metformin use and ovarian cancer incidence. Only a fifth of the randomised controlled trials investigating the effect of anti-diabetic interventions on women’s health reached statistical significance and highlighted metformin as a more effective agent than insulin on risk reduction of adverse obstetric outcomes in both gestational and pre-gestational diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Gestational diabetes appears to be strongly associated with a high risk of caesarean section and large for gestational age babies. Weaker associations were demonstrated between diabetes and anti-diabetic interventions with other obstetric and gynaecological outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (OSF) (Registration https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9G6AB). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12916-023-02758-1. BioMed Central 2023-04-18 /pmc/articles/PMC10114404/ /pubmed/37072764 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-02758-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Semertzidou, Anita Grout-Smith, Harriet Kalliala, Ilkka Garg, Akanksha Terzidou, Vasso Marchesi, Julian MacIntyre, David Bennett, Phillip Tsilidis, Konstantinos Kyrgiou, Maria Diabetes and anti-diabetic interventions and the risk of gynaecological and obstetric morbidity: an umbrella review of the literature |
title | Diabetes and anti-diabetic interventions and the risk of gynaecological and obstetric morbidity: an umbrella review of the literature |
title_full | Diabetes and anti-diabetic interventions and the risk of gynaecological and obstetric morbidity: an umbrella review of the literature |
title_fullStr | Diabetes and anti-diabetic interventions and the risk of gynaecological and obstetric morbidity: an umbrella review of the literature |
title_full_unstemmed | Diabetes and anti-diabetic interventions and the risk of gynaecological and obstetric morbidity: an umbrella review of the literature |
title_short | Diabetes and anti-diabetic interventions and the risk of gynaecological and obstetric morbidity: an umbrella review of the literature |
title_sort | diabetes and anti-diabetic interventions and the risk of gynaecological and obstetric morbidity: an umbrella review of the literature |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10114404/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37072764 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-02758-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT semertzidouanita diabetesandantidiabeticinterventionsandtheriskofgynaecologicalandobstetricmorbidityanumbrellareviewoftheliterature AT groutsmithharriet diabetesandantidiabeticinterventionsandtheriskofgynaecologicalandobstetricmorbidityanumbrellareviewoftheliterature AT kallialailkka diabetesandantidiabeticinterventionsandtheriskofgynaecologicalandobstetricmorbidityanumbrellareviewoftheliterature AT gargakanksha diabetesandantidiabeticinterventionsandtheriskofgynaecologicalandobstetricmorbidityanumbrellareviewoftheliterature AT terzidouvasso diabetesandantidiabeticinterventionsandtheriskofgynaecologicalandobstetricmorbidityanumbrellareviewoftheliterature AT marchesijulian diabetesandantidiabeticinterventionsandtheriskofgynaecologicalandobstetricmorbidityanumbrellareviewoftheliterature AT macintyredavid diabetesandantidiabeticinterventionsandtheriskofgynaecologicalandobstetricmorbidityanumbrellareviewoftheliterature AT bennettphillip diabetesandantidiabeticinterventionsandtheriskofgynaecologicalandobstetricmorbidityanumbrellareviewoftheliterature AT tsilidiskonstantinos diabetesandantidiabeticinterventionsandtheriskofgynaecologicalandobstetricmorbidityanumbrellareviewoftheliterature AT kyrgioumaria diabetesandantidiabeticinterventionsandtheriskofgynaecologicalandobstetricmorbidityanumbrellareviewoftheliterature |