Evidence mapPaperPMID 30403576Full record

Trial reportMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2018

Cost-effectiveness of Initiating an Insulin Pump in T1D Adults Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring Compared with Multiple Daily Insulin Injections: The DIAMOND Randomized Trial.

Wen Wan, M Reza Skandari, Alexa Minc, Aviva G Nathan, Parmida Zarei, Aaron N Winn, Michael O'Grady, Elbert S Huang

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Summarizing data from continuous glucose monitors using the cgmstats package.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Wen WanSection of General Internal Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL (WW, MRS, AM, AGN, PZ, ESH).ORCID 0000-0002-7464-6563
M Reza SkandariSection of General Internal Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL (WW, MRS, AM, AGN, PZ, ESH).
Alexa MincSection of General Internal Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL (WW, MRS, AM, AGN, PZ, ESH).
Aviva G NathanSection of General Internal Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL (WW, MRS, AM, AGN, PZ, ESH).
Parmida ZareiSection of General Internal Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL (WW, MRS, AM, AGN, PZ, ESH).
Aaron N WinnSection of General Internal Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL (WW, MRS, AM, AGN, PZ, ESH).ORCID 0000-0003-2906-3913
Michael O'GradySection of General Internal Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL (WW, MRS, AM, AGN, PZ, ESH).
Elbert S HuangSection of General Internal Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL (WW, MRS, AM, AGN, PZ, ESH).
Medical College of Wisconsin · US

Funding

Research Design, Data, and Analytics CoreP30DK092949 · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · 2025 to 2025
$660k
NIDDK NIH HHS K24 DK105340NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK092949
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe economic impact of both continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and insulin pumps (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII]) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) have been evaluated separately. However, the cost-effectiveness of adding CSII to existing CGM users has not yet been assessed.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the societal cost-effectiveness of CSII versus continuing multiple daily injections (MDI) in adults with T1D already using CGM.

methodsIn the second phase of the DIAMOND trial, 75 adults using CGM were randomized to either CGM+CSII or CGM+MDI (control) and surveyed at baseline and 28 weeks. We performed within-trial and lifetime cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) and estimated lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) via a modified Sheffield T1D model.

resultsWithin the trial, the CGM+CSII group had a significant reduction in quality of life from baseline (-0.02 ± 0.05 difference in difference [DiD]) compared with controls. Total per-person 28-week costs were $8,272 (CGM+CSII) versus $5,623 (CGM+MDI); the difference in costs was primarily attributable to pump use ($2,644). Pump users reduced insulin intake (-12.8 units DiD) but increased the use of daily number of test strips (+1.2 DiD). Pump users also increased time with glucose in range of 70 to 180 mg/dL but had a higher HbA1c (+0.13 DiD) and more nonsevere hypoglycemic events. In the lifetime CEA, CGM+CSII would increase total costs by $112,045 DiD, decrease QALYs by 0.71, and decrease life expectancy by 0.48 years.

conclusionsBased on this single trial, initiating an insulin pump in adults with T1D already using CGM was associated with higher costs and reduced quality of life. Additional evidence regarding the clinical effects of adopting combinations of new technologies from trials and real-world populations is needed to confirm these findings.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBlood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringCost-Benefit AnalysisDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1FemaleGlycated HemoglobinHumansInsulinInsulin Infusion SystemsMaleMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CareQuality-Adjusted Life YearsQuality of LifeBlood GlucoseGlycated HemoglobinInsulincontinuous glucose monitoringcost-effectivenessinsulin pumprandomized clinical trialtype 1 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID30403576
PMCPMC6226055
OpenAlexW2900433092

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.