Meta-Analysis of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Effects on Neonatal Outcomes

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials, comprising data from 2,349 pregnant women with diabetes, compares continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to standard blood glucose monitoring. The study, authored by Xiaojun Lai and published in 2026, calculates pooled risk ratios for neonatal outcomes including NICU admission, large for gestational age, and neonatal hypoglycemia.

Use Cases

• Calculate pooled risk ratios for neonatal outcomes like NICU admission and large for gestational age to compare CGM versus SMBG effectiveness.
• Assess heterogeneity (I2 statistic) across the 17 included RCTs for outcomes such as neonatal hypoglycemia and small for gestational age.
• Analyze the reported risk ratios and confidence intervals for primary outcomes to evaluate statistical significance of CGM interventions.

Strengths

• Analysis is based on 17 randomized controlled trials, a substantial number for a meta-analysis in this clinical domain.
• Includes data from 2,349 participants, providing a meaningful sample size for pooled effect estimates.
• Reports specific statistical measures including risk ratios, 95% confidence intervals, P-values, and I2 heterogeneity statistics for each outcome.

Limitations

• The dataset is a 31.8 KB document summarizing the analysis, not the underlying raw trial data, limiting direct analytical reuse.
• Temporal coverage of the included studies is not specified beyond the search date, potentially including older trials.
• As a systematic review, findings are dependent on the quality, design, and reporting of the original 17 RCTs.

Provenance

Source

figshare, authored by Xiaojun Lai.

Collection Method

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials identified from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library.

Time Range

Database inception through February 5, 2026.

Freshness

Last updated March 2026, indicating recent synthesis of available evidence.

Geography

Global, as the review included international RCTs, but specific regions are not detailed.