Trial reportActa diabetologica2025
A new approach in insulin pump education improves glycemic outcomes: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Acta diabetologica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Experiences of Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Using Digital Health Technology for Diabetes Self-Care: Qualitative Study.JMIR diabetes · 2026Article
- Factors Associated With Time to Automated Insulin Delivery System Initiation in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes on Multiple Daily Injections.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2026Article
- Feasibility of transition research in pituitary disease using patient registries: a EuRREB secondary survey.Endocrine connections · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo address the scarcity of continued education for insulin pump users, we developed and evaluated a new program (NP) for individuals transitioning to a different insulin pump.
methodsIn a randomized, controlled 3-month study, adults with type 1 diabetes and suboptimal HbA1c received either NP or usual care program (UC). The NP was designed in collaboration with representatives of the target group and incorporated technical training, case-based learning, and peer experience sharing - encompassing two group sessions, and two follow-up telephone calls. The UC included a single training session led by the pump company with hotline assistance (clinic) but no structured follow-up. The primary endpoint was the difference in time in range (TIR) (70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10.0 mmol/L)), measured by continuous glucose monitoring from baseline to 3 months post-course. Psychosocial self-efficacy was measured by the Diabetes Empowerment Scale (DES-SF).
resultsThirty-nine participants (median age 43, 74% female) were included. Mean TIR increased significantly in the NP group and remained unchanged in the UC group (between-group difference in change was 13.5% [95% CI: 4.0 to 22.9], p = 0.0064). Psychosocial self-efficacy improved and HbA1c decreased only significantly in the NP group.
conclusionsApplying a novel education program at pump transition significantly improved glycemic outcomes and self-efficacy.
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.