Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33848314›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2021

Physiological effects of intraperitoneal versus subcutaneous insulin infusion in patients with diabetes mellitus type 1: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ilze Dirnena-Fusini, Marte Kierulf Åm, Anders Lyngvi Fougner, Sven Magnus Carlsen, Sverre Christian Christiansen

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Microfluidic-based systems for the management of diabetes.Drug delivery and translational research · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ilze Dirnena-FusiniDepartment of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-6632-808X
Marte Kierulf ÅmDepartment of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Anders Lyngvi FougnerDepartment of Engineering Cybernetics, Faculty of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-7583-5027
Sven Magnus CarlsenDepartment of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Sverre Christian ChristiansenDepartment of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Norwegian University of Science and Technology · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The intraperitoneal route of administration accounts for less than 1% of insulin treatment regimes in patients with diabetes mellitus type 1 (DM1). Despite being used for decades, a systematic review of various physiological effects of this route of insulin administration is lacking. Thus, the aim of this systematic review was to identify the physiological effects of continuous intraperitoneal insulin infusion (CIPII) compared to those of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in patients with DM1. Four databases (EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus and CENTRAL) were searched beginning from the inception date of each database to 10th of July 2020, using search terms related to intraperitoneal and subcutaneous insulin administration. Only studies comparing CIPII treatment (≥ 1 month) with CSII treatment were included. Primary outcomes were long-term glycaemic control (after ≥ 3 months of CIPII inferred from glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels) and short-term (≥ 1 day for each intervention) measurements of insulin dynamics in the systematic circulation. Secondary outcomes included all reported parameters other than the primary outcomes. The search identified a total of 2242 records; 39 reports from 32 studies met the eligibility criteria. This meta-analysis focused on the most relevant clinical end points; the mean difference (MD) in HbA1c levels during CIPII was significantly lower than during CSII (MD = -6.7 mmol/mol, [95% CI: -10.3 --3.1]; in percentage: MD = -0.61%, [95% CI: -0.94 -- 0.28], p = 0.0002), whereas fasting blood glucose levels were similar (MD = 0.20 mmol/L, [95% CI: -0.34-0.74], p = 0.47; in mg/dL: MD = 3.6 mg/dL, [95% CI: -6.1-13.3], p = 0.47). The frequencies of severe hypo- and hyper-glycaemia were reduced. The fasting insulin levels were significantly lower during CIPII than during CSII (MD = 16.70 pmol/L, [95% CI: -23.62 --9.77], p < 0.0001). Compared to CSII treatment, CIPII treatment improved overall glucose control and reduced fasting insulin levels in patients with DM1.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1HumansHypoglycemic AgentsInfusions, ParenteralInfusions, SubcutaneousInsulinHypoglycemic AgentsInsulin

Identifiers

PMID33848314
PMCPMC8043377
OpenAlexW3155196485

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.