System Maintenance Notice

Please note that maintenance work is scheduled between 4 AM and 5 AM - CET. During this time, you may experience reduced performance. Thanks for your patience.

Publications

Journal Article Review Ahead of print 3 citations

PubMed: 40698417 DOI: 10.1177/19322968251357873

The Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Comparison to Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose in Gestational Diabetes: A Systematic Review.

J Diabetes Sci Technol

Authors: Bhavadharini Balaji, Wesley Hannah, Polina V Popova, Uma Ram, Mohan Deepa, Janeline Lunghar, Kumaran Uthra, Haritha Sagili, Sadishkumar Kamalanathan, Ranjit Mohan Anjana, Viswanathan Mohan

Affiliations

  • Madras Diabetes Research Foundation, Chennai, India.
  • Department of Epidemiology, Madras Diabetes Research Foundation, Chennai, India.
  • Institute of Endocrinology, Almazov National Medical Research Centre, Saint Petersburg, Russia.
  • Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Seethapathy Clinic and Hospital, Chennai, India.
  • Madras Diabetes Research Foundation (ICMR Collaborating Centre of Excellence) and Dr. Mohan's Diabetes Specialities Centre (IDF Centre of Excellence in Diabetes Care), Chennai, India.
  • Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Pondicherry, India.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has emerged as an important tool for managing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), offering real-time glucose data and the potential for improved glycemic control. Unlike traditional self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), which provides intermittent readings, CGM captures continuous glucose fluctuations, including postprandial and nocturnal changes, which are critical in GDM management.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of CGM compared with SMBG in managing glycemic control in women with GDM, focusing on key glycemic metrics such as time in range (TIR) and glycemic variability (GV), and exploring their associations with maternal and neonatal outcomes.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of PubMed and Google Scholar was conducted, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. Studies included randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and prospective cohort studies comparing CGM and SMBG, with 35 studies ultimately reviewed.

RESULTS

Compared with SMBG, CGM demonstrated significant improvements in maintaining TIR and reducing GV, which correlated with favorable maternal and neonatal outcomes, including lower rates of large-for-gestational-age (LGA) infants, preterm birth, and NICU (neonatal intensive care unit) admissions. Furthermore, CGM detected more hyperglycemic and hypoglycemic events, particularly nocturnal fluctuations. However, the studies also highlighted the need for standardized metrics to optimize CGM use in GDM management.

CONCLUSION

Continuous glucose monitoring offers substantial advantages over SMBG for managing GDM by providing continuous, real-time glucose data, enabling timely treatment adjustments. These findings support the integration of CGM into clinical practice to improve maternal and neonatal outcomes in GDM. Further research is needed to establish standardized CGM metrics specific to GDM management.

MeSH

Diabetes Mellitus, Diabetes, Gestational, Blood Glucose, Blood, Glycemic Control, Continuous Glucose Monitoring