<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><rdf:Description rdf:about="https://dirros.openscience.si/IzpisGradiva.php?id=31976"><dc:title>Flash glucose monitoring addition to self-monitoring of blood glucose and perinatal outcomes in gestational diabetes</dc:title><dc:creator>Zorko,	Klara	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>Munda,	Ana	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>Janež,	Andrej	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:creator>Pongrac Barlovič,	Draženka	(Avtor)
	</dc:creator><dc:subject>continuous glucose monitoring</dc:subject><dc:subject>CGM</dc:subject><dc:subject>gestational diabetes</dc:subject><dc:subject>GDM</dc:subject><dc:subject>large-for-gestational-age</dc:subject><dc:subject>LGA</dc:subject><dc:subject>flash glucose monitoring</dc:subject><dc:subject>perinatal outcomes</dc:subject><dc:subject>self-monitoring of blood glucose</dc:subject><dc:subject>small-for-gestational-age</dc:subject><dc:description>Background: Self-monitoring of blood glucose represents the standard for glycemic monitoring in gestational diabetes mellitus, while the role of continuous glucose monitoring remains uncertain. Objective: To assess whether adjunctive flash glucose monitoring improves achievement of established self-monitored glucose targets compared with self-monitoring alone and to examine maternal and neonatal outcomes. Study Design: We conducted an open-label, single-center, randomized controlled trial comparing adjunctive flash glucose monitoring plus self-monitoring of blood glucose with self-monitoring of blood glucose alone. The prespecified primary outcome was the percentage of self-monitored glucose measurements within the established target range. Secondary outcomes included maternal and neonatal outcomes. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. Results: A total of 205 women (median age, 32 years; median prepregnancy body mass index, 23.5 kg/m2; median gestational age, 27 weeks) were randomized (102 to adjunctive flash glucose monitoring and 103 to self-monitoring alone). The percentage of self-monitored glucose measurements within target range was lower in the adjunctive flash monitoring group (89.5% vs 92.6%, P=.04). Median fasting and 1-hour postprandial self-monitored glucose concentrations were comparable between groups and within recommended targets. The incidence of large-for-gestational-age infants was lower in the flash monitoring group (3% vs 11%; P=.05; odds ratio, 0.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.07–0.99). Conclusion: Adjunctive flash glucose monitoring did not improve glycemic outcome in this low-risk gestational diabetes population. However, it was associated with fewer large-for-gestational-age neonates, a secondary outcome that should be interpreted cautiously given the sample size and number of events.</dc:description><dc:date>2026</dc:date><dc:date>2026-08-21 14:18:47</dc:date><dc:type>Neznano</dc:type><dc:identifier>31976</dc:identifier><dc:language>sl</dc:language></rdf:Description></rdf:RDF>
