Acta diabetologica · 2026
Continuous glucose monitoring versus self-monitoring of blood glucose in gestational diabetes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gautam Naveen, de Souza Bruno Lins, Abramowitz Jessica, Mourão Denise Machado, Mirfakhraee Sasan, Abreu Marconi
Аннотация
AIMS: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) benefits pregnant women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, but its role in gestational diabetes (GDM) remains uncertain. We aimed to compare the effects of CGM with self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) on glycemic, maternal, and neonatal outcomes in women with GDM.
METHODS: We compared CGM with SMBG in women with GDM through a systematic search across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Scopus. We evaluated glycemic, maternal and neonatal outcomes using a random-effects model.
RESULTS: Eleven RCTs (n = 1225) met inclusion criteria. The use of CGM increased the likelihood of achieving appropriate maternal weight gain (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.82; I2 = 0%) and reduced mean neonatal birth weight (MD - 122.79 g, 95% CI - 189.78 to - 55.79; I2 = 0%). CGM use did not change maternal time in range (TIR), time above range (TAR), time below range (TBR), glycated hemoglobin, gestational hypertension, cesarean delivery, macrosomia, preterm delivery, neonatal hypoglycemia, or neonatal intensive care unit admissions.
CONCLUSIONS: In women with GDM, the use of CGM improved the likelihood of appropriate maternal weight gain and lowered neonatal birth weight compared with SMBG, but it did not improve overall glycemic control or other maternal and fetal outcomes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420251044960 (registered 2025).
METHODS: We compared CGM with SMBG in women with GDM through a systematic search across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Scopus. We evaluated glycemic, maternal and neonatal outcomes using a random-effects model.
RESULTS: Eleven RCTs (n = 1225) met inclusion criteria. The use of CGM increased the likelihood of achieving appropriate maternal weight gain (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.82; I2 = 0%) and reduced mean neonatal birth weight (MD - 122.79 g, 95% CI - 189.78 to - 55.79; I2 = 0%). CGM use did not change maternal time in range (TIR), time above range (TAR), time below range (TBR), glycated hemoglobin, gestational hypertension, cesarean delivery, macrosomia, preterm delivery, neonatal hypoglycemia, or neonatal intensive care unit admissions.
CONCLUSIONS: In women with GDM, the use of CGM improved the likelihood of appropriate maternal weight gain and lowered neonatal birth weight compared with SMBG, but it did not improve overall glycemic control or other maternal and fetal outcomes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420251044960 (registered 2025).