Evidence mapPaperPMID 36004676Full record

ReviewDiabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association2023

Impact of glycaemic technologies on quality of life and related outcomes in adults with type 1 diabetes: A narrative review.

Jane Speight, Pratik Choudhary, Emma G Wilmot, Christel Hendrieckx, Hannah Forde, Wai Yee Cheung, Thomas Crabtree, Bekki Millar, Gemma Traviss-Turner, Andrew Hill and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
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

42 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Treatment burden and health-related quality of life in young adults with type 1 diabetes.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

11 authors.

Jane SpeightSchool of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1204-6896
Pratik ChoudharyDiabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7635-4735
Emma G WilmotDepartment of Diabetes, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, UK.
Christel HendrieckxSchool of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0075-828X
Hannah FordeDiabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Wai Yee CheungDiabetes Research Unit Cymru, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK.
Thomas CrabtreeDepartment of Diabetes, University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7886-8262
Bekki MillarDiabetes Research Steering Group, Diabetes UK, London, UK.
Gemma Traviss-TurnerLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1770-6216
Andrew HillLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Ramzi A AjjanLeeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, the LIGHT Laboratories, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1636-3725

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo explore the association between the use of glycaemic technologies and person-reported outcomes (PROs) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

methodsWe included T1D and technology publications reporting on PROs since 2014. Only randomised controlled trials and cohort studies that used validated PRO measures (PROMs) were considered.

resultsT1D studies reported on a broad range of validated PROMs, mainly as secondary outcome measures. Most studies examined continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM), and the role of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), including sensor-augmented CSII and closed loop systems. Generally, studies demonstrated a positive impact of technology on hypoglycaemia-specific and diabetes-specific PROs, including reduced fear of hypoglycaemia and diabetes distress, and greater satisfaction with diabetes treatment. In contrast, generic PROMs (including measures of health/functional status, emotional well-being, depressive symptoms, and sleep quality) were less likely to demonstrate improvements associated with the use of glycaemic technologies. Several studies showed contradictory findings, which may relate to study design, population and length of follow-up. Differences in PRO findings were apparent between randomised controlled trials and cohort studies, which may be due to different populations studied and/or disparity between trial and real-world conditions.

conclusionsPROs are usually assessed as secondary outcomes in glycaemic technology studies. Hypoglycaemia-specific and diabetes-specific, but not generic, PROs show the benefits of glycaemic technologies, and deserve a more central role in future studies as well as routine clinical care.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1HypoglycemiaAdultBlood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringHumansHypoglycemic AgentsInsulinInsulin Infusion SystemsQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTechnologyBlood GlucoseHypoglycemic AgentsInsulincontinuous glucose monitoring (CGM)insulin pumpintermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM)person-reported outcome measure (PROM)person-reported outcomes (PROs)quality of life (QoL)type 1 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID36004676
PMCPMC10283013

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.