RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) is a type of diabetes which occurs during pregnancy. Women with GDM are at greater risk of complications during pregnancy and delivery, while babies born from mothers with GDM are at greater risk of post-natal complications. Using the most updated diagnosis criteria, the GDM prevalence is estimated at 9.3-25.5% worldwide and 9.3-18.9% in China. Our objective was to identify healthcare interventions aimed at GDM prevention and control in China. METHODS: A best-evidence synthesis was performed based on a systematic search of literature published between 1997 and October 2015 in PubMed, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wan-fang databases using keywords "Gestational Diabetes Mellitus", "GDM", "Intervention" "Medical Intervention" "Early Medical Intervention", "Dietary Intervention", "Exercise Intervention", "Lifestyle Intervention", "Therapy", "Treatment" and "China". Inclusion criteria were studies conducted in China, reporting GDM healthcare interventions, and published in either Chinese or English. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility and quality of the studies and extracted the data. Treatment efficacy was examined with weighted pooled odds ratio (OR) meta-analyses. RESULTS: The search resulted in 5961 articles (published in 276 different Chinese language journals and 6 English language journals), of which 802 were included in this synthesis. While 39.4% (n = 316) failed to report the GDM diagnostic criteria used, the remaining studies classified GDM with various international (n = 5) or Chinese (n = 7) diagnostic standards. Treatment interventions were categorized into 6 types: dietary (18.6%), exercise (1.6%), medication (20.7%), health education (9.0%), psychological (2.6%) and combination (47.4%). No interventions aimed at GDM prevention were identified. Meta-analyses demonstrated a statistically significant overall benefit of GDM treatment strategies in reducing the odds of maternal and infant adverse outcomes (ORs range 0.20-0.34, 95% CI 0.17-0.49, P < 0.05 for all). Dietary, western medication, and combined interventions were the most effective inteventions. CONCLUSIONS: An increasing number of healthcare interventions were found in China aimed at controlling GDM while no interventions were intended for GDM prevention. Well-designed clinical trials are needed to determine the comparative and cost effectiveness of GDM prevention and treatment strategies.
Asunto(s)
Diabetes Gestacional/terapia , Dieta , Ejercicio Físico , Educación en Salud , Hipoglucemiantes/uso terapéutico , China , Terapia Combinada , Diabetes Gestacional/diagnóstico , Diabetes Gestacional/prevención & control , Femenino , Conductas Relacionadas con la Salud , Humanos , Embarazo , Complicaciones del Embarazo/etiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The number of pharmacoeconomic publications in the literature from China has risen rapidly, but the quality of pharmacoeconomic publications from China has not been analyzed. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to identify all recent pharmacoeconomic publications from China, to critically appraise the reporting quality, and to summarize the results. METHODS: Four databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, and EmBase) were searched for original articles published up to December 31, 2014. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement including 24 items was used to assess the quality of reporting of these articles. RESULTS: Of 1046 articles identified, 32 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. They were published in 23 different journals. Quality of reporting varied between studies, with an average score of 18.7 (SD = 4.33) out of 24 (range 9-23.5). There was an increasing trend of pharmacoeconomic publications and reporting quality over years from 2003 to 2014. According to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards, the reporting quality for the items including "title," "comparators of method," and "measurement of effectiveness" are quite low, with less than 50% of studies fully satisfying these reporting standards. In contrast, reporting was good for the items including "introduction," "study perspective," "choice of health outcomes," "study parameters," "characterizing heterogeneity," and "discussion," with more than 75% of the articles satisfying these reporting criteria. The remaining items fell in between these 2 extremes, with 50% to 75% of studies satisfying these criteria. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests the need for improvement in a number of reporting criteria. But the criteria for which reporting quality was low seem to be limitations that would be straightforward to correct in future studies.