Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27125223›Full record

Trial reportPediatric diabetes2017

In-home nighttime predictive low glucose suspend experience in children and adults with type 1 diabetes.

Laurel H Messer, Peter Calhoun, Bruce Buckingham, Darrell M Wilson, Irene Hramiak, Trang T Ly, Marsha Driscoll, Paula Clinton, David M Maahs, In Home Closed Loop Study Group

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Pediatric diabetes, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Feature-Based Machine Learning Model for Real-Time Hypoglycemia Prediction.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2021
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Artificial Pancreas in Young Children.Diabetes technology & therapeutics · 2017
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Laurel H MesserBarbara Davis Center for Childhood Diabetes, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, CO, USA.
Peter CalhounJaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, FL, USA.
Bruce BuckinghamDivision of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Stanford School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Darrell M WilsonDivision of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Stanford School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Irene HramiakDivision of Endocrinology and Metabolism, St Joseph's Health Care, London, ON, Canada.
Trang T LyDivision of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Stanford School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Marsha DriscollDiabetes Clinical Trials Unit, St. Joseph's Health Care London, London, ON, Canada.
Paula ClintonDivision of Endocrinology and Diabetes, Stanford School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
David M MaahsBarbara Davis Center for Childhood Diabetes, University of Colorado Denver, Aurora, CO, USA.
In Home Closed Loop Study Group

Funding

Stanford Islet Research CoreP30DK116074 · NIDDK · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Seung K Kim · 2017 to 2026
$19.5M
In home closed loop reduction of nocturnal hypoglycemia and daytime hyperglycemiaR01DK085591 · NIDDK · JAEB CENTER FOR HEALTH RESEARCH, INC. · PI BECK, ROY W., BUCKINGHAM, BRUCE A · 2009 to 2013
$3.9M
NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK085591
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Overnight predictive low glucose suspend (PLGS) reduces hypoglycemia across all ages; however, there are no reports on behavior or experience differences across age groups, especially in pediatrics. As run-in for a subsequent randomized clinical trial (RCT), 127 subjects (50% male) ages 4-45 yr utilized the experimental PLGS system nightly for 5-10 nights (PLGS active phase). We analyzed the number of blood glucose (BG) checks and boluses given per age group. During the subsequent 42 night RCT phase, we analyzed sensor use, skin reactions, errors, and reasons why the experimental system was not used. In 821 nights of active PLGS, subjects ages 4-6 yr (and their parents) tested BG levels 75% of nights compared with 65% of nights (7-10 yr), 53% of nights (11-14 yr), 33% of nights (15-25 yr), and 28% of nights (26-45 yr), respectively (p < 0.001). Likewise, youngest subjects (and parents) administered insulin boluses 56% of nights during active PLGS use compared with 48%, 33%, 20%, and 25%, respectively (p < 0.001). This was unrelated to study requirements. During the RCT phase, subjects 4-6 yr experienced more frequent and severe skin reactions (p = 0.02), while adult subjects (26-45 yr) wore individual sensors a median of 26 h longer than the youngest subjects (p < 0.001). Technical problems with the sensor (errors, miscalibrations, etc.), traveling, and BG levels >270 at bedtime (study requirement) were primary contributors to non-system use. Understanding the different use patterns and challenges in pediatrics and adolescence is needed to direct patient education to optimize use of PLGS and future artificial pancreas systems.

Indexed as

Patient ComplianceAdolescentAdultAge FactorsAlgorithmsBlood GlucoseChildChild, PreschoolCohort StudiesDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1FemaleHumansHypoglycemiaHypoglycemic AgentsInsulinMaleBlood GlucoseHypoglycemic AgentsInsulinartificial pancreaspediatricstype 1 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID27125223
PMCPMC5086306

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.