ArticlePregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.)2025
Characterizing glucose in labor: Continuous glucose monitoring in parturients without diabetes.
Article in Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.), 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Current recommendations for intrapartum glycemic control in those with diabetes mellitus are based upon expert opinion. Our objective was to characterize intrapartum interstitial glucose values using continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) in term gravidas without diabetes. Methods: A prospective observational cohort of 72 parturients without pre-gestational or gestational diabetes. CGMs were placed in early labor and the following were obtained: glucose at delivery, mean glucose in active and second stage of labor, time in range defined as 70-120 mg/dL, time above range, and time below range. Glucose parameters were compared by body mass index (BMI) and by adequacy of gestational weight gain. Neonatal outcomes were assessed. Results: The mean glucose value at delivery was 109 ± 27 mg/dL and over the 2 h prior to delivery was 99 ± 23 mg/dL. A total of 26% of parturients had a glucose value > 120 mg/dL at the time of delivery. Mean glucose in active labor was 101 ± 25 mg/dL and in the second stage was 99.5 ± 23 mg/dL. In labor, average time-in-range was 69.8% (10th-90th percentile 33.8%-95.8%), time-above-range was 19.9% (10th-90th percentile 0%-66.2%), and time-below-range was 10.3% (10th-90th percentile 0%-66%). Neither BMI nor gestational weight gain had a significant clinical impact on these parameters. A total of 28 infants had glucose checked for clinical indications and 5 required treatment for neonatal hypoglycemia; this was unrelated to mean glucose during labor or at delivery, time-above-range in labor and second stage, and time-above-range in the 4 h prior to delivery. Conclusion: Interstitial glucose greater than 120 mg/dL was common, and neither BMI nor gestational weight gain appears to have a significant clinical impact on glucose in labor. These data challenge contemporary definitions of glucose goals in labor, and further study is needed to better define glucose in labor and identify risk factors for adverse outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.