ReviewPregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.)2026
Glucose monitoring in the management of diabetes in pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Diabetes in pregnancy (DIP: gestational, type 1 [T1D], and type 2 diabetes [T2D]) is increasing in global prevalence and was recently declared a public health priority by the World Health Organization (WHO). Aim: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated different glucose monitoring management for DIP, including routine care at antenatal visits, self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to inform new WHO recommendations on care for pregnant women with DIP. Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and LILACs from database inception to October 2024 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing SMBG with routine care at antenatal visits or CGM with SMBG. Data were extracted on maternal glycemia (HbA1c, SMBG fasting, 1-h postprandial glucose, CGM metrics [mean sensor glucose, pregnancy time-in-range, time-above-range, and time-below-range]) and perinatal outcomes (gestational weight gain, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, preeclampsia, large-for-gestational age [LGA], macrosomia, small-for-gestational age, neonatal hypoglycemia, and neonatal intensive care unit [NICU] admissions). Measures of effect were summarized as mean differences (MDs) or risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for gestational diabetes, T1D and T2D. The GRADE framework was used to assess the certainty of effect estimates. Results: In gestational diabetes, SMBG compared to routine care at antenatal visits reduced LGA ( Conclusions: SMBG improves important perinatal outcomes for pregnant women with gestational diabetes, T1D and T2D. CGM probably provides additional benefit for maternal glycemia in T1D, and for some perinatal outcomes in T1D and gestational diabetes. More evidence is needed to determine the potential benefits of CGM for women with T2D in pregnancy.
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.