SynthesisBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of continuous glucose monitoring compared to self-monitoring of blood glucose on glycemic control and maternal and infant outcomes in women with gestational diabetes mellitus.
Synthesis in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundContinuous glucose monitoring (CGM) compared to self-blood glucose monitoring (SMBG) has been a controversial topic regarding glycemic control in pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), as well as maternal and infant outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess and compare the effectiveness of CGM and SMBG in managing glycemic control and perinatal outcomes among homebound pregnant women with GDM.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted across five databases-PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library-commencing on July 15, 2024. We included four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared CGM with SMBG in patients with GDM. The primary outcomes assessed were gestational weight gain (GWG), glycated hemoglobin(HbA1c), and the number of people treated with hypoglycemic drugs. Participants were excluded if they had received any glucose-lowering medication prior to enrollment. A meta-analysis of interventions on the basis of at least two studies with 95% confidence intervals and an assessment of heterogeneity via the I² statistic were performed.
resultsThe results of the study showed that CGM was significantly associated with a decrease in the number of women with excessive GWG and an increase in the number of GWG-appropriate (RR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.41, 0.80; I² = 0.0%; P = 0.001), (RR = 1.55; 95% CI: 1.19, 2.03; I² = 0.0%; P = 0.001). However, GWG-insufficiency was not significantly different (RR = 1.03; 95% CI: 0.47, 2.26; I² = 0.0%; P = 0.948). Real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) may offer superior effectiveness in glycemic control management compared with SMBG (SMD=-0.70; 95%CI=-1.07, -0.34; P = 0.000; I
conclusionCGM may be more effective than SMBG in preventing excessive weight gain and maintaining appropriate gestational weight in women with GDM. Moreover, rt-CGM appears to offer superior glycemic control compared with SMBG. r-CGM may be more effective in reducing neonatal birth weight.
trial registrationThe PROSPERO registration number is CRD42024571538.
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.