SynthesisFrontiers in endocrinology2026
The effect of continuous glucose monitoring on neonatal outcomes in pregnant women with diabetes.
Synthesis in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Managing Gestational Diabetes Complexity with Continuous Glucose Monitoring: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effects of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) compared with standard self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) on neonatal perinatal outcomes among pregnant women with diabetes. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane library was conducted from database inception through February 5th, 2026. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling pregnant women with confirmed diabetes that compared CGM with conventional SMBG were included. Primary outcomes included large for gestational age (LGA), small for gestational age (SGA), neonatal hypoglycemia, neonatal hyperbilirubinemia, and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Seventeen RCTs comprising 2,349 women with diabetes were included, with 1,234 participants allocated to CGM and 1,115 to SMBG. CGM use was associated with a significantly lower risk of NICU admission compared with SMBG (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.97, P = 0.03, I2 = 0%). CGM demonstrated a nonsignificant trend toward reduced incidence of LGA (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.01, P = 0.06, I2 = 31%) and neonatal hypoglycemia (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.03, P = 0.10, I2 = 0%). However, CGM was associated with an increased risk of SGA (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.04, P = 0.04, I2 = 0%). No significant difference was observed in the risk of neonatal hyperbilirubinemia between groups (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.01, P = 0.64, I2 = 0%). Between-study heterogeneity was low to moderate across outcomes. Conclusion: Among women with diabetes, CGM is associated with a significant reduction in NICU admissions. CGM may reduce the risk of LGA and neonatal hypoglycemia, although the beneficial effects did not reach statistical significance. The observed increase in SGA highlights the need for careful glycemic target optimization when using CGM in GDM. Further large, high-quality RCTs are warranted to define optimal CGM-guided glucose targets that balance fetal overgrowth and growth restriction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.