Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39364272›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024

Effect of automated insulin delivery systems on person-reported outcomes in people with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Timm Roos, Norbert Hermanns, Christopher Groß, Bernhard Kulzer, Thomas Haak, Dominic Ehrmann

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Automatic activation of neurostimulation for central sleep apnea results in high nightly usage.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2026
    Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

6 authors.

Timm RoosResearch Institute of the Diabetes Academy Mergentheim (FIDAM), Johann-Hammer-Str. 24, 97980, Bad Mergentheim, Germany.
Norbert HermannsResearch Institute of the Diabetes Academy Mergentheim (FIDAM), Johann-Hammer-Str. 24, 97980, Bad Mergentheim, Germany.
Christopher GroßDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Otto-Friedrich-University of Bamberg, Markusplatz 3, 96047, Bamberg, Germany.
Bernhard KulzerResearch Institute of the Diabetes Academy Mergentheim (FIDAM), Johann-Hammer-Str. 24, 97980, Bad Mergentheim, Germany.
Thomas HaakResearch Institute of the Diabetes Academy Mergentheim (FIDAM), Johann-Hammer-Str. 24, 97980, Bad Mergentheim, Germany.
Dominic EhrmannResearch Institute of the Diabetes Academy Mergentheim (FIDAM), Johann-Hammer-Str. 24, 97980, Bad Mergentheim, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Conclusive evidence on the benefits of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems on person-reported outcomes (PROs) is missing. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, four databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and GoogleScholar) were searched from inception up to August 7th, 2024. All types of studies were included if studies reported on PROs in people with diabetes using an AID system. All types of control groups in randomised controlled trials (RCT) were included. Summary data were extracted by three reviewers. Main outcomes focused on diabetes distress, fear of hypoglycaemia and quality of life. Meta-analyses were conducted for RCTs and observational studies separately. When five or more studies could be pooled, random-effects meta-analysis was used, otherwise common-effects meta-analysis was used. Risk of bias was evaluated with Cochrane tools. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022352502. Findings: A total of 62 studies (n = 9253) were included reporting on 45 different questionnaires. Twenty-seven studies were RCTs and 25 were observational studies. RCT meta-analyses showed reduced diabetes distress (standardised mean difference [95% CI]: -0.159 [-0.309, -0.010], I Interpretation: We found low to moderate effect sizes indicating that AID therapy is associated with reduced burden and improved well-being in people with diabetes. Evidence comes from both RCTs and observational studies. However, for some PROs only a limited number of studies could be pooled with a large heterogeneity in questionnaires used. More research is needed with a more uniformed assessment of PROs to demonstrate the added value of AID therapy on psychosocial outcomes. Funding: None.

Indexed as

Automated insulin deliveryDiabetes mellitusMeta-analysisPerson-reported outcomesSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39364272
PMCPMC11447321

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.