Continuous glucose monitoring in pregnant women with Type 1 diabetes: benefits for mothers, using pumps or pens, and their babies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aims To review the current literature on the use of continuous glucose monitoring during pregnancy in women with Type 1 diabetes. Methods We searched the literature for randomized controlled trials using continuous glucose monitoring during pregnancy in women with Type 1 diabetes. Results Three randomized trials were found and discussed in this review. One UK study found a reduction in large‐for‐gestational‐age infants; however, only masked continuous glucose monitoring was used in that study. A Danish study used intermittent real‐time continuous glucose monitoring and found no differences. The present authors conducted the CONCEPTT trial, in which pregnant women and women planning pregnancy were randomized to receive continuous glucose monitoring or standard care. We found a greater drop in HbA 1c , more time spent in the target range, and a reduction in some adverse neonatal outcomes in women using continuous glucose monitoring. Numbers‐needed‐to‐treat to prevent a large‐for‐gestational‐age infant, a neonatal intensive care unit admission for >24 h, and a neonatal hypoglycaemia event were low. These findings were seen in both injection and pump users and across all countries. Possible reasons for differences in study findings are discussed. In addition, several issues need further study. Glycaemic variability and differences in dietary intake may also have played a role. Despite excellent glycaemic control, babies continue to be large. More research is needed to understand the role of glucose targets and the dynamic placental processes involved in fetal growth. Conclusions The use of continuous glucose monitoring in women with Type 1 diabetes in pregnancy is associated with improved glycaemic control and neonatal outcomes. Further research examining the glycaemic and non‐glycaemic variables involved in fetal growth and the cost–benefit of using continuous glucose monitoring in pregnancy is warranted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".