Summary of findings 5. Automated telemedicine monitoring compared to conventional for women with pre‐existing diabetes.
| Automated telemedicine monitoring compared to conventional for women with pre‐existing diabetes | ||||||
| Patient or population: women with pre‐existing diabetes Setting: 2 studies in antenatal diabetic clinics in Italy, 1 study in gastroenterology and metabolic diseases clinic in Poland Intervention: automated telemedicine monitoring Comparison: conventional monitoring | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with conventional monitoring | Risk with automated telemedicine monitoring | |||||
| Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (including pre‐eclampsia, pregnancy‐induced hypertension, eclampsia) | Study population | (0 studies) | The included studies did not report this composite outcome. | |||
| Caesarean section | Study population | RR 0.96 (0.62 to 1.48) | 32 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW 1 2 | ||
| 733 per 1000 | 704 per 1000 (455 to 1000) | |||||
| Large‐for‐gestational age | Study population | (0 studies) | The included studies did not report this outcome. | |||
| Perinatal mortality (stillbirth and neonatal mortality) | Study population | (0 studies) | The included studies did not report this outcome. | |||
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: Risk ratio | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect | ||||||
1 We downgraded (2) levels for very serious design limitations due to high risk for randomisation, allocation concealment, attrition and other bias
2 We downgraded (2) levels for very serious imprecision due to wide CI crossing the line of no effect, few events and small sample size