Continuous glucose monitor use in type 2 diabetes mellitus in pregnancy and perinatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis
American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM, ISSN: 2589-9333, Vol: 5, Issue: 7, Page: 100969
2023
- 14Citations
- 49Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations14
- Citation Indexes13
- 13
- CrossRef6
- Policy Citations1
- Policy Citation1
- Captures49
- Readers49
- 49
Review Description
This study aimed to assess whether continuous glucose monitor use in type 2 diabetes mellitus in pregnancy is associated with improved perinatal outcomes. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane library from inception through May 9, 2022. We included all studies that compared continuous glucose monitor use with fingerstick glucose monitoring in women with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The initial search yielded 2463 unique citations that were screened in Covidence by 2 independent reviewers. Study types included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and cross-sectional studies. Our outcomes of interest were macrosomia or large-for-gestational-age infants, hemoglobin A1c, cesarean delivery, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy including preeclampsia, gestational age at delivery, and neonatal hypoglycemia. Three randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. We performed random-effects meta-analyses of estimates from 2 studies without risk of significant bias and reported summary adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Meta-analysis of 56 women with continuous glucose monitor use and 53 control women without continuous glucose monitor use showed that there was no difference in the incidence of large-for-gestational-age infants between continuous glucose monitor users and standard-of-care controls (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.34–1.78) with an I2 of 0%. In addition, there was no difference in the development of preeclampsia between continuous glucose monitor users and standard-of-care controls (odds ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.34–7.22) with an I2 of 0%. Continuous glucose monitor use was not associated with improved perinatal outcomes as assessed by large-for-gestational-age infants and preeclampsia. This review is limited by the small amount of data available for this population, and further research is needed.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589933323001118; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajogmf.2023.100969; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85163473253&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37061044; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2589933323001118; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajogmf.2023.100969
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know