Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2016 Nov 9;18(11):e290.
doi: 10.2196/jmir.6556.

Telemedicine Technologies for Diabetes in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Wai-Kit Ming  1   2 , Lucy H Mackillop  3 , Andrew J Farmer  4 , Lise Loerup  5 , Katy Bartlett  3 , Jonathan C Levy  6 , Lionel Tarassenko  5 , Carmelo Velardo  5 , Yvonne Kenworthy  1 , Jane E Hirst  1
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Telemedicine Technologies for Diabetes in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Wai-Kit Ming et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: Diabetes in pregnancy is a global problem. Technological innovations present exciting opportunities for novel approaches to improve clinical care delivery for gestational and other forms of diabetes in pregnancy.

Objective: To perform an updated and comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to determine whether telemedicine solutions offer any advantages compared with the standard care for women with diabetes in pregnancy.

Methods: The review was developed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) in women with diabetes in pregnancy that compared telemedicine blood glucose monitoring with the standard care were identified. Searches were performed in SCOPUS and PubMed, limited to English language publications between January 2000 and January 2016. Trials that met the eligibility criteria were scored for risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias Tool. A meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager software version 5.3 (Nordic Cochrane Centre, Cochrane Collaboration).

Results: A total of 7 trials were identified. Meta-analysis demonstrated a modest but statistically significant improvement in HbA1c associated with the use of a telemedicine technology. The mean HbA1c of women using telemedicine was 5.33% (SD 0.70) compared with 5.45% (SD 0.58) in the standard care group, representing a mean difference of -0.12% (95% CI -0.23% to -0.02%). When this comparison was limited to women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) only, the mean HbA1c of women using telemedicine was 5.22% (SD 0.70) compared with 5.37% (SD 0.61) in the standard care group, mean difference -0.14% (95% CI -0.25% to -0.04%). There were no differences in other maternal and neonatal outcomes reported.

Conclusions: There is currently insufficient evidence that telemedicine technology is superior to standard care for women with diabetes in pregnancy; however, there was no evidence of harm. No trials were identified that assessed patient satisfaction or cost of care delivery, and it may be in these areas where these technologies may be found most valuable.

Keywords: diabetes mellitus; meta-analysis; pregnancy; pregnancy in diabetics; review; telemedicine.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study selection. RTC: randomized controlled trial; GDM: gestational diabetes mellitus; T1 DM: type 1 diabetes mellitus; T2 DM: type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Distribution of bias in the included trials.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Risk of bias in the included trials.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plot showing the pooled HbA1c and blood glucose level (telemedicine vs control group).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Forest plot showing the pooled clinical parameter—maternal outcomes (telemedicine vs control group).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Forest plot showing the pooled clinical parameter at birth (telemedicine vs control group).
Figure 7
Figure 7
Forest plot showing the pooled risk of neonatal complication (telemedicine vs control group).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Kelley KW, Carroll DG, Meyer A. A review of current treatment strategies for gestational diabetes mellitus. Drugs Context. 2015;4:212282. doi: 10.7573/dic.212282. doi: 10.7573/dic.212282.dic-4-212282 - DOI - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. IDF. [2016-10-27]. IDF Diabetes Atlas reveals high burden of hyperglycaemia in pregnancy. 2014. http://www.idf.org/diabetesvoice/issue-1-2014/idf-diabetes-atlas .
    1. Mulla WR, Henry TQ, Homko CJ. Gestational diabetes screening after HAPO: has anything changed? Curr Diab Rep. 2010 Jun;10(3):224–8. doi: 10.1007/s11892-010-0109-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tieu J, McPhee AJ, Crowther CA, Middleton P. Screening and subsequent management for gestational diabetes for improving maternal and infant health. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(2):CD007222. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007222.pub3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Balsells M, García-Patterson A, Solà I, Roqué M, Gich I, Corcoy R. Glibenclamide, metformin, and insulin for the treatment of gestational diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2015;350:h 102. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=25609400 - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources