一步与两步妊娠糖尿病筛查与妊娠结局的比较:一项系统综述

Yunike Putri Nurfauzia
{"title":"一步与两步妊娠糖尿病筛查与妊娠结局的比较:一项系统综述","authors":"Yunike Putri Nurfauzia","doi":"10.53555/nnmhs.v9i8.1788","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Carbohydrate disorders, including gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and pregestational diabetes, have significant impacts on maternal, fetal, and neonatal health. \nAim: This study aims to conduct a systematic review and analyze pooled data to evaluate how the choice of GDM testing strategy influences pregnancy outcomes. \nMethods: This systematic review adhered to the PRISMA guidelines. The study question and eligibility criteria were defined using the PICOT method, focusing on pregnant patients and comparing IADPSG one-step to Carpenter-Coustan two-step testing in the late mid-trimester \nResults: Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included, involving a total of 2,333 participants. The one-step approach demonstrated a non-significant difference in GDM incidence compared to the two-step approach. However, the one-step approach was associated with significantly improved maternal and perinatal outcomes \nConclusion: This systematic review provides insights into the comparison of One Step versus Two Step approaches for gestational diabetes screening and their impact on maternal and perinatal outcomes. While the incidence of GDM did not significantly differ between the two approaches","PeriodicalId":347955,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Advance Research in Medical & Health Science (ISSN: 2208-2425)","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ONE- STEP COMPARED WITH TWO-STEP GESTATIONAL DIABETES SCREENING AND PREGNANCY OUTCOMES : A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW\",\"authors\":\"Yunike Putri Nurfauzia\",\"doi\":\"10.53555/nnmhs.v9i8.1788\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Carbohydrate disorders, including gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and pregestational diabetes, have significant impacts on maternal, fetal, and neonatal health. \\nAim: This study aims to conduct a systematic review and analyze pooled data to evaluate how the choice of GDM testing strategy influences pregnancy outcomes. \\nMethods: This systematic review adhered to the PRISMA guidelines. The study question and eligibility criteria were defined using the PICOT method, focusing on pregnant patients and comparing IADPSG one-step to Carpenter-Coustan two-step testing in the late mid-trimester \\nResults: Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included, involving a total of 2,333 participants. The one-step approach demonstrated a non-significant difference in GDM incidence compared to the two-step approach. However, the one-step approach was associated with significantly improved maternal and perinatal outcomes \\nConclusion: This systematic review provides insights into the comparison of One Step versus Two Step approaches for gestational diabetes screening and their impact on maternal and perinatal outcomes. While the incidence of GDM did not significantly differ between the two approaches\",\"PeriodicalId\":347955,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Advance Research in Medical & Health Science (ISSN: 2208-2425)\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Advance Research in Medical & Health Science (ISSN: 2208-2425)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.53555/nnmhs.v9i8.1788\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Advance Research in Medical & Health Science (ISSN: 2208-2425)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53555/nnmhs.v9i8.1788","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:碳水化合物紊乱,包括妊娠期糖尿病(GDM)和妊娠期糖尿病,对母亲、胎儿和新生儿的健康有显著影响。目的:本研究旨在通过系统回顾和分析汇总数据来评估GDM检测策略的选择对妊娠结局的影响。方法:本系统综述遵循PRISMA指南。采用PICOT方法确定研究问题和入选标准,重点关注妊娠患者,并比较妊娠中后期的IADPSG一步法和Carpenter-Coustan两步法。结果:纳入3项随机对照试验(RCTs),共涉及2,333名受试者。一步法与两步法相比,GDM发病率无显著差异。结论:本系统综述提供了一步法与两步法在妊娠期糖尿病筛查中的比较及其对孕产妇和围产期结局的影响。而GDM的发生率在两种方法之间没有显著差异
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
ONE- STEP COMPARED WITH TWO-STEP GESTATIONAL DIABETES SCREENING AND PREGNANCY OUTCOMES : A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Background: Carbohydrate disorders, including gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and pregestational diabetes, have significant impacts on maternal, fetal, and neonatal health. Aim: This study aims to conduct a systematic review and analyze pooled data to evaluate how the choice of GDM testing strategy influences pregnancy outcomes. Methods: This systematic review adhered to the PRISMA guidelines. The study question and eligibility criteria were defined using the PICOT method, focusing on pregnant patients and comparing IADPSG one-step to Carpenter-Coustan two-step testing in the late mid-trimester Results: Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included, involving a total of 2,333 participants. The one-step approach demonstrated a non-significant difference in GDM incidence compared to the two-step approach. However, the one-step approach was associated with significantly improved maternal and perinatal outcomes Conclusion: This systematic review provides insights into the comparison of One Step versus Two Step approaches for gestational diabetes screening and their impact on maternal and perinatal outcomes. While the incidence of GDM did not significantly differ between the two approaches
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信