Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28367636›Full record

Trial reportJournal of diabetes science and technology2017

Closing the Loop in Adults, Children and Adolescents With Suboptimally Controlled Type 1 Diabetes Under Free Living Conditions: A Psychosocial Substudy.

Katharine D Barnard, Timothy Wysocki, Vanessa Ully, Julia K Mader, Thomas R Pieber, Hood Thabit, Martin Tauschmann, Lalantha Leelarathna, Sara Hartnell, Carlo L Acerini and 13 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
8.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 128 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Experiences of People With Type 1 Diabetes Using the iLet Bionic Pancreas in Primary Care: A Qualitative Analysis.Clinical diabetes : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2025
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Improving equity in diabetes technology use: Voices of youth and their parents.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

23 authors at 9 institutions in 4 countries.

Katharine D Barnard1 Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, UK.
Timothy Wysocki2 Nemours Children's Health System, Jacksonville, FL, USA.
Vanessa Ully3 Division of Endocrinology and Diabetology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Julia K Mader3 Division of Endocrinology and Diabetology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Thomas R Pieber3 Division of Endocrinology and Diabetology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Hood Thabit4 Wellcome Trust-MRC Institute of Metabolic Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Martin Tauschmann4 Wellcome Trust-MRC Institute of Metabolic Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Lalantha Leelarathna4 Wellcome Trust-MRC Institute of Metabolic Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Sara Hartnell5 Wolfson Diabetes Endocrine Clinic, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Carlo L Acerini6 Department of Paediatrics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Malgorzata E Wilinska4 Wellcome Trust-MRC Institute of Metabolic Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Sibylle Dellweg7 Profil Institut für Stoffwechselforschung GmbH, Neuss, Germany.
Carsten Benesch7 Profil Institut für Stoffwechselforschung GmbH, Neuss, Germany.
Sabine Arnolds7 Profil Institut für Stoffwechselforschung GmbH, Neuss, Germany.
Manuel Holzer3 Division of Endocrinology and Diabetology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Harald Kojzar3 Division of Endocrinology and Diabetology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Fiona Campbell8 Leeds Children's Hospital, Leeds, UK.
James Yong8 Leeds Children's Hospital, Leeds, UK.
Jennifer Pichierri9 Institute of Child Health, University College London Hospital, London, UK.
Peter Hindmarsh9 Institute of Child Health, University College London Hospital, London, UK.
Lutz Heinemann7 Profil Institut für Stoffwechselforschung GmbH, Neuss, Germany.
Mark L Evans4 Wellcome Trust-MRC Institute of Metabolic Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Roman Hovorka4 Wellcome Trust-MRC Institute of Metabolic Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Medical University of Graz · ATUniversity of Cambridge · GBProfil Institute for Metabolic Research · DECambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust · GBUniversity College London · GBBournemouth University · GBNemours Children's Health System · USWellcome/MRC Institute of Metabolic Science · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective was to explore psychosocial experiences of closed loop technology for adults, children, and adolescents with type 1 diabetes and their parents taking part in two multicenter, free-living, randomized crossover home studies.

methodsParticipants using insulin pump therapy were randomized to either 12 weeks of automated closed-loop glucose control, then 12 weeks of sensor augmented insulin pump therapy (open loop), or vice versa. Closed loop was used for 24 hours by adults and overnight only by children and adolescents. Participants completed the Diabetes Technology Questionnaire (DTQ) periodically and shared their views in semistructured interviews. This analysis characterizes the impact of the technology, positive and negative aspects of living with the device, alongside participants' expectations, hopes, and anxieties.

resultsParticipants were 32 adults, age 38.6 ± 9.6 years, 55% male, and 26 children, mean age 12 years (range 6-18 years), 54% male. DTQ results indicated moderately favorable impact of, and satisfaction with, both open and closed loop interventions, but little evidence of a comparative advantage of either. Key positive themes included perceived improved blood glucose control, improved general well-being, particularly on waking, improved sleep, reduced burden of diabetes, and visibility of data. Key negative themes included having to carry around the equipment and dislike of the pump and second cannula (ie, sensor) inserted.

conclusionsOverall, participants reported a positive experience of the closed loop technology. Results are consistent with previous research with size of equipment continuing to be a problem. Progress is being made in the usability of the closed-loop system.

Indexed as

Insulin Infusion SystemsAdaptation, PsychologicalAdolescentAdultBiomarkersBlood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringChildCost of IllnessCross-Over StudiesDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1EuropeFemaleGlycated HemoglobinHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansBiomarkersBlood GlucoseGlycated Hemoglobinhemoglobin A1c protein, humanHypoglycemic AgentsInsulinartificial pancreasclosed looppsychosocialtype 1 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID28367636
PMCPMC5951034
OpenAlexW2604712698

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.