Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17636806›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2007

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily injections of insulin for pregnant women with diabetes.

D Farrar, D J Tuffnell, J West

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Insulin pumps in hospital: a guide for the generalist physician.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2013
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

D FarrarBradford Royal Infirmary Maternity Unit, Duckworth Lane, Bradford, UK, BD9 6RJ. diane.farrar@bradfordhospitals.nhs.uk
D J Tuffnell
J West
Bradford Royal Infirmary · GBBradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiabetes causes a rise in blood glucose above normal physiological levels causing damage to many systems including the cardiovascular and renal systems. Pregnancy causes a physiological reduction in insulin action; for those women who have pre-gestational diabetes, this results in an increasing insulin requirement. There are several methods of administering insulin. Conventionally, insulin has been administered subcutaneously, formally referred to as intensive conventional treatment, but now more usually referred to as multiple daily injections (MDI). An alternative insulin administration method is the continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion pump (CSII).

objectivesTo compare continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion with MDI of insulin for pregnant women with diabetes. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (November 2006). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing CSII with MDI for pregnant women with diabetes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently assessed studies and extracted data. MAIN

resultsTwo studies (60 women with 61 pregnancies) were included. There was a significant increase in mean birthweight associated with CSII as opposed to MDI (weighted mean difference 220.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.09 to 443.20; two trials, 61 participants). However, taking into consideration the lack of significant difference in rate of macrosomia (birthweight greater than 4000 g) (relative risk (RR) 3.20, 95% CI 0.14 to 72.62; two trials, 61 participants), this is not viewed by the authors as clinically significant. No significant differences were found in any other outcomes measured, which may reflect the small number of trials suitable for meta-analysis and the small number of participants in the included studies. No significant differences were found in perinatal mortality (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.20 to 19.91), fetal anomaly (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.54), maternal hypoglycaemia (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.35 to 25.87) or maternal hyperglycaemia (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.39 to 125.44). AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is a dearth of robust evidence to support the use of one particular form of insulin administration over another for pregnant women with diabetes. The data are limited because of the small number of trials appropriate for meta-analysis, small study sample size and questionable generalisability of the trial population. Conclusions cannot be made from the data available and therefore a robust randomised trial is needed. The trial should be adequately powered to assess the efficacy of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily injections in terms of appropriate outcomes for women with diabetes.

Indexed as

Pregnancy in DiabeticsDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1FemaleHumansHypoglycemic AgentsInjections, SubcutaneousInsulinInsulin Infusion SystemsPregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicHypoglycemic AgentsInsulin

Identifiers

PMID17636806
OpenAlexW4245515569

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.