Evidence mapPaperPMID 38382954Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Study protocol for a randomised open-label clinical trial examining the safety and efficacy of the Android Artificial Pancreas System (AAPS) with advanced bolus-free features in adults with type 1 diabetes: the 'CLOSE IT' (Closed Loop Open SourcE In Type 1 diabetes) trial.

Tom Wilkinson, Dunya Tomic, Erin Boyle, David Burren, Yasser Elghattis, Alicia Jenkins, Celeste Keesing, Sonia Middleton, Natalie Nanayakkara, Jonathan Williman and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Tom WilkinsonUniversity of Otago Christchurch, Christchurch, New Zealand thomas.wilkinson@cdhb.health.nz.ORCID 0000-0002-9025-3778
Dunya TomicBaker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Erin BoyleBaker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
David BurrenBaker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Yasser ElghattisBaker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8351-4784
Alicia JenkinsBaker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Celeste KeesingUniversity of Otago Christchurch, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Sonia MiddletonBaker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Natalie NanayakkaraBaker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Jonathan WillimanUniversity of Otago Christchurch, Christchurch, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0001-5080-4435
Martin de BockUniversity of Otago Christchurch, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Neale D CohenBaker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute · AUUniversity of Otago · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMultiple automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have become commercially available following randomised controlled trials demonstrating benefits in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). However, their real-world utility may be undermined by user-associated burdens, including the need to carbohydrate count and deliver manual insulin boluses. There is an important need for a 'fully automated closed loop' (FCL) AID system, without manual mealtime boluses. The (Closed Loop Open SourcE In Type 1 diabetes) trial is a randomised trial comparing an FCL AID system to the same system used as a hybrid closed loop (HCL) in people with T1D, in an outpatient setting over an extended time frame. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Randomised, open-label, parallel, non-inferiority trial comparing the Android Artificial Pancreas System (AAPS) AID algorithm used as FCL to the same algorithm used as HCL. Seventy-five participants aged 18-70 will be randomised (1:1) to one of two treatment arms for 12 weeks: (a) FCL-participants will be advised not to bolus for meals and (b) HCL-participants will use the AAPS AID algorithm as HCL with announced meals. The primary outcome is the percentage of time in target sensor glucose range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L). Secondary outcomes include other glycaemic metrics, safety, psychosocial factors, platform performance and user dietary factors. Twenty FCL arm participants will participate in a 4-week extension phase comparing glycaemic and dietary outcomes using NovoRapid (insulin aspart) to Fiasp (insulin aspart and niacinamide). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approvals are by the Alfred Health Ethics Committee (615/22) (Australia) and Health and Disability Ethics Committees (2022 FULL 13832) (New Zealand). Each participant will provide written informed consent. Data protection and confidentiality will be ensured. Study results will be disseminated by publications, conferences and patient advocacy groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ACTRN12622001400752 and ACTRN12622001401741.

Indexed as

Blood GlucoseDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1Hypoglycemic AgentsInsulinInsulin Infusion SystemsPancreas, ArtificialAdolescentAdultAgedAlgorithmsBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringEquivalence Trials as TopicFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedBlood GlucoseHypoglycemic AgentsInsulinClinical TrialDIABETES & ENDOCRINOLOGYGeneral diabetes

Identifiers

PMID38382954
PMCPMC10882371
OpenAlexW4392005177

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.