Evidence mapPaperPMID 38995398Full record

ReviewDiabetologia2024

Use of diabetes technology in children.

Melissa J Schoelwer, Mark D DeBoer, Marc D Breton

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diabetologia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. [Diabetes technology (Update 2026)].Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2026
    Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. The Rise and Rise of Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes in Youth.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2025
    Review
  12. 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

3 authors.

Melissa J SchoelwerDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Mark D DeBoerDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Marc D BretonCenter for Diabetes Technology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA. mb6nt@virginia.edu.

Funding

NIDDK NIH HHS U01 DK127551NIH NIDDK U01DK127551
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Children with type 1 diabetes and their caregivers face numerous challenges navigating the unpredictability of this complex disease. Although the burden of managing diabetes remains significant, new technology has eased some of the load and allowed children with type 1 diabetes to achieve tighter glycaemic management without fear of excess hypoglycaemia. Continuous glucose monitor use alone improves outcomes and is considered standard of care for paediatric type 1 diabetes management. Similarly, automated insulin delivery (AID) systems have proven to be safe and effective for children as young as 2 years of age. AID use improves not only blood glucose levels but also quality of life for children with type 1 diabetes and their caregivers and should be strongly considered for all youth with type 1 diabetes if available and affordable. Here, we review key data on the use of diabetes technology in the paediatric population and discuss management issues unique to children and adolescents.

Indexed as

Blood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1InsulinInsulin Infusion SystemsAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolHumansHypoglycemic AgentsQuality of LifeBlood GlucoseHypoglycemic AgentsInsulinAutomated insulin deliveryContinuous glucose monitoringDiabetes technologyMedical technologyPaediatric careReviewType 1 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID38995398
PMCPMC11457698

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.