Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39726162›Full record

SynthesisDiabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association2025

The effect of automated insulin delivery system use on diabetes distress in people with type 1 diabetes and their caregivers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Dulce Canha, Virginia McMahon, Susanne Schmitz, Carine De Beaufort, Fawaz Alzaid, Yves Reznik, Jean-Pierre Riveline, Guy Fagherazzi, Gloria A Aguayo

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

9 authors.

Dulce CanhaDeep Digital Phenotyping Research Unit, Department of Precision Health, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Strassen, Luxembourg.
Virginia McMahonDeep Digital Phenotyping Research Unit, Department of Precision Health, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Strassen, Luxembourg.
Susanne SchmitzMinistry of Health and Social Security, Directorate of Health, Service Epidemiology and Statistics, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg.
Carine De BeaufortDepartment of Paediatric Diabetes and Endocrinology, Paediatric Clinic, Hospital Centre of Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg.
Fawaz AlzaidNecker Institute for Sick Children, INSERM U1151, CNRS UMR 8253, IMMEDIAB Laboratory, Paris, France.
Yves ReznikEndocrinology and Diabetes Department, CHU Côte de Nacre, Caen Cedex, France.
Jean-Pierre RivelineNecker Institute for Sick Children, INSERM U1151, CNRS UMR 8253, IMMEDIAB Laboratory, Paris, France.
Guy FagherazziDeep Digital Phenotyping Research Unit, Department of Precision Health, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Strassen, Luxembourg.
Gloria A AguayoDeep Digital Phenotyping Research Unit, Department of Precision Health, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Strassen, Luxembourg.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5625-1664

Funding

Fonds National de la Recherche Luxembourg
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsDiabetes distress (DD) is prevalent among people with diabetes. While automated insulin delivery systems (AIDs) improve glycaemic control, their impact on DD is unclear. We aimed to investigate the effect of AIDs on DD in people with diabetes and their caregivers.

methodsWe focused on people with diabetes using AIDs versus other insulin delivery systems, with DD as the outcome. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), before-after studies (BAS) and observational studies until 4 April 2024. After screening, 40 studies were included in the systematic review, comprising 5426 participants (3210 adults, 1131 paediatric and 1085 caregivers). Twenty-seven studies were selected for the meta-analysis (focusing solely on type 1 diabetes). We used random effects models by population and study design. We also conducted a subgroup analysis by age group (children vs. teenagers).

resultsIn adults, eight BAS and five RCTs indicated a significant small DD reduction post-AID initiation (standardised mean difference [95% confidence intervals] -0.32 [95% CI: -0.40, -0.24] and [-0.19 (-0.27, -0.11)]). No significant changes were observed in the paediatric population. In caregivers, eleven BAS and five RCTs indicated a significant moderate DD reduction (-0.48 [95% CI: -0.78, -0.18] and (-0.22 [-0.38, -0.06])). Subgroup analysis revealed an increased benefit in parents of children compared to parents of teenagers.

conclusionsThis work suggests that AIDs is associated with a DD reduction in adults and caregivers but not in children/teenagers with type 1 diabetes. More longitudinal studies and better systematic DD assessments are needed.

Indexed as

CaregiversDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1Hypoglycemic AgentsInsulinInsulin Infusion SystemsAdultChildHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicHypoglycemic AgentsInsulinadolescentsadultsautomated insulin deliverycaregiverschildrendiabetes distressmeta‐analysissystematic reviewtype 1 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID39726162
PMCPMC11929561

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.