Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38606830›Full record

ReviewJournal of diabetes science and technology2024

Continuous Glucose Monitoring Metrics for Pregnancies Complicated by Diabetes: Critical Appraisal of Current Evidence.

Emily D Szmuilowicz, Linda Barbour, Florence M Brown, Celeste Durnwald, Denice S Feig, Grenye O'Malley, Sarit Polsky, Grazia Aleppo

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Evidence, Clinical Benefits and Remaining Challenges.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Optimizing Automated Insulin Delivery Systems for Pregnancy.Diabetes spectrum : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Emily D SzmuilowiczNorthwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7399-3934
Linda BarbourUniversity of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
Florence M BrownJoslin Diabetes Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Celeste DurnwaldUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Denice S FeigUniversity of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Grenye O'MalleyIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Sarit PolskyUniversity of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
Grazia AleppoNorthwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1644-5947
Northwestern University · USUniversity of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus · USIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · USJoslin Diabetes Center · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · USUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ascertaining the utility of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in pregnancy complicated by diabetes is a rapidly evolving area, as the prevalence of type 1 diabetes (T1D), type 2 diabetes (T2D), and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) escalates. The seminal randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating CGM use added to standard care in pregnancy in T1D demonstrated significant improvements in maternal glycemia and neonatal health outcomes. Current clinical guidance recommends targets for percentage time in range (TIR), time above range (TAR), and time below range (TBR) during pregnancy complicated by T1D that are widely used in clinical practice. However, the superiority of CGM over blood glucose monitoring (BGM) is still questioned in both T2D and GDM, and whether glucose targets should be different than in T1D is unknown. Questions requiring additional research include which CGM metrics are superior in predicting clinical outcomes, how should pregnancy-specific CGM targets be defined, whether CGM targets should differ according to gestational age, and if CGM metrics during pregnancy should be similar across all types of diabetes. Limiting the potential for CGM to improve pregnancy outcomes may be our inability to maintain TIR > 70% throughout gestation, a goal achieved in the minority of patients studied. Adverse pregnancy outcomes remain high in women with T1D and T2D in pregnancy despite CGM technology, and this review explores the potential reasons and questions yet to be investigated.

Indexed as

Blood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringDiabetes, GestationalDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Pregnancy in DiabeticsContinuous Glucose MonitoringFemaleGlycemic ControlHumansPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeBlood Glucosecontinuous glucose monitoringdiabetes technologypregnancytype 1 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID38606830
PMCPMC11307229
OpenAlexW4394751572

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.