Evidence mapPaperPMID 32864597Full record

Trial reportThe Lancet. Digital health2020

Evening and overnight closed-loop control versus 24/7 continuous closed-loop control for type 1 diabetes: a randomised crossover trial.

Boris P Kovatchev, Laura Kollar, Stacey M Anderson, Charlotte Barnett, Marc D Breton, Kelly Carr, Rachel Gildersleeve, Mary C Oliveri, Christian A Wakeman, Sue A Brown

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Lancet. Digital health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02679287 (Project Nightlight), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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.

NCT02679287 nacompletednot on this map

Project Nightlight: Efficacy and System Acceptance of Dinner/Night vs. 24hr Closed Loop Control

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of VirginiaRan2016 to 2019Enrolled103ConditionsDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1ArmsCLC
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Boris P KovatchevUniversity of Virginia Center for Diabetes Technology, Charlottesville, VA USA.
Laura KollarUniversity of Virginia Center for Diabetes Technology, Charlottesville, VA USA.
Stacey M AndersonUniversity of Virginia Center for Diabetes Technology, Charlottesville, VA USA.
Charlotte BarnettUniversity of Virginia Center for Diabetes Technology, Charlottesville, VA USA.
Marc D BretonUniversity of Virginia Center for Diabetes Technology, Charlottesville, VA USA.
Kelly CarrUniversity of Virginia Center for Diabetes Technology, Charlottesville, VA USA.
Rachel GildersleeveUniversity of Virginia Center for Diabetes Technology, Charlottesville, VA USA.
Mary C OliveriUniversity of Virginia Center for Diabetes Technology, Charlottesville, VA USA.
Christian A WakemanUniversity of Virginia Center for Diabetes Technology, Charlottesville, VA USA.
Sue A BrownUniversity of Virginia Center for Diabetes Technology, Charlottesville, VA USA.
University of Virginia · US

Funding

NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK085623
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Automated closed-loop control (CLC), known as the "artificial pancreas" is emerging as a treatment option for Type 1 Diabetes (T1D), generally superior to sensor-augmented insulin pump (SAP) treatment. It is postulated that evening-night (E-N) CLC may account for most of the benefits of 24-7 CLC; however, a direct comparison has not been done. Methods: In this trial (NCT02679287), adults with T1D were randomised 1:1 to two groups, which followed different sequences of four 8-week sessions, resulting in two crossover designs comparing SAP vs E-N CLC and E-N CLC vs 24-7 CLC, respectively. Eligibility: T1D for at least 1 year, using an insulin pump for at least six months, ages 18 years or older. Primary hypothesis: E-N CLC compared to SAP will decrease percent time <70mg/dL (3.9mmol/L) measured by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) without deterioration in HbA Findings: Ninety-three participants were randomised and 80 were included in the analysis, ages 18-69 years; HbA1c levels 5.4-10.6%; 66% female. Compared to SAP, E-N CLC reduced overall time <70mg/dL from 4.0% to 2.2% () resulting in an absolute difference of 1.8% (95%CI: 1.2-2.4%), p<0.0001. This was accompanied by overall reduction in HbA Interpretation: In type 1 diabetes, evening-night closed-loop control was superior to sensor-augmented pump therapy, achieving most of the glycaemic benefits of 24-7 closed-loop.

Indexed as

Insulin Infusion SystemsAdolescentAdultAgedCross-Over StudiesDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1FemaleHumansInsulinMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, PhysiologicYoung AdultInsulinArtificial PancreasClosed-Loop Control (CLC)Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM)Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion (CSII)

Identifiers

PMID32864597
PMCPMC7453908
OpenAlexW2998526207

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.