Summary of findings 2. Myo‐inositol for preventing gestational diabetes (neonatal, child and adult outcomes).
| Antenatal supplementation with myo‐inositol for preventing gestational diabetes | ||||||
|
Patient or population: pregnant women who were at risk of GDM Setting: Italy Intervention: Myo‐inositol Comparison: Control | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with control | Risk with Myo‐inositol | |||||
| Large‐for‐gestational age | not estimable | (0 studies) | No data reported for large‐for‐gestational age in any of the included studies | |||
| Perinatal mortality | not estimable | (0 studies) | No data reported for perinatal mortality in any of the included studies | |||
| Composite of serious neonatal outcomes | not estimable | (0 studies) | No data reported for composite of serious neonatal outcomes in any of the included studies | |||
| Neonatal hypoglycaemia | Study population | RR 0.36 (0.01 to 8.66) | 398 (2 RCTs) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW 1 2 3 | ||
| 0 per 100 | 0 per 100 (0 to 4) | |||||
| Adiposity | not estimable | (0 studies) | No data reported for adiposity in any of the included studies | |||
| Diabetes | not estimable | (0 studies) | No data reported for diabetes in any of the included studies | |||
| Neurosensory disability | not estimable | (0 studies) | No data reported for neurosensory disability in any of the included studies | |||
| *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; 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 No blinding in either study and reporting of allocation concealment was unclear in one of the studies, downgraded (‐1).
2 Both studies were conducted in Italy with Caucasian women and may not be generalisable to other settings, downgraded (‐1).
3 Wide confidence intervals with very low event rates suggest evidence of imprecision, downgraded (‐1).