ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2022
Automated Insulin Delivery in Real Life (AID-IRL): Real-World User Perspectives on Commercial AID.
Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of real-world evidence on commercially available automated insulin delivery systems in people with type 1 diabetes.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Pooled it
- Examining the Emotional and Physical Health Impact in Users of Open-Source Automated Insulin Delivery and Sources of Support: Qualitative Analysis of Patient Narratives.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Celebrating the Data from 100,000 Real-World Users of the MiniMed™ 780G System in Europe, Middle East, and Africa Collected Over 3 Years: From Data to Clinical Evidence.Diabetes technology & therapeutics · 2024Article
- Practical Guidance on Open Source and Commercial Automated Insulin Delivery Systems: A Guide for Healthcare Professionals Supporting People with Insulin-Requiring Diabetes.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2022Article
- How It Started, How It Is Going: The Future of Artificial Pancreas Systems (Automated Insulin Delivery Systems).Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2021Article
- Automated Insulin Delivery Systems: Today, Tomorrow and User Requirements.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2021Article
- Why #WeAreNotWaiting-Motivations and Self-Reported Outcomes Among Users of Open-source Automated Insulin Delivery Systems: Multinational Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Safety and glycemic outcomes of do-it-yourself AndroidAPS hybrid closed-loop system in adults with type 1 diabetes.PloS one · 2021Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Commercial automated insulin delivery (AID) systems are usually assessed based on clinical outcomes, ignoring uptake. A qualitative study evaluated user experiences when switching to currently available commercial AID. Interview feedback was coded on key themes including the adoption experience with regards to quality of life, clinical outcomes, and users' expectations. Most felt their learning curve was easy. Most saw reduced hypoglycemia and increased time in range, although there were outliers. Many mentioned post-meal hyperglycemia as an improvement area for commercial AID. Users with one particular continuous glucose monitor (CGM) type reported sleep disruption. Companies should consider real-world user feedback with regards to improving training materials for new users with less CGM experience and by improving target flexibility and postprandial algorithm performance, plus reducing manual interventions required by users.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
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.