ArticleEClinicalMedicine2025
Efficacy of automated insulin delivery systems in people with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of outpatient randomised controlled trials.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of real-world evidence on commercially available automated insulin delivery systems in people with type 1 diabetes.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Pooled it
- Metabolic and vascular outcomes after transition to the MiniMed 780G system in adults ≥65 years with type 1 diabetes: a randomised, single-centre study.Diabetologia · 2026Trial
- Performance of an automated insulin-glucagon delivery system versus automated insulin delivery system during challenging inpatient conditions. A single-blind randomised controlled crossover trial.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Trial
- HbA1c improvement in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes using the CamAPS FX automated insulin delivery (AID) system: Clinical and economic outcomes.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2026Article
- A bibliometric analysis of global trends in AI-driven digital health technologies for diabetes management.Medicine · 2026Article
- Long-term effectiveness of automated insulin delivery in young people with type 1 diabetes: a meta-analysis.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2026Article
- Effectiveness and safety of the MiniMed™ 780G in newly diagnosed adolescents with type 1 diabetes: an observational real-world study.Endocrine · 2026Observational
- Rethinking control-IQ+ technology: Simple strategies for easy optimization.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Review
- International clinical opinion on transparency, standardisation, and calibration alignment in the performance evaluation of systems for continuous glucose monitoring.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Review
- 9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2026.Diabetes care · 2026Review
- A region-wide hub and spoke approach to standardize and decentralize type 1 diabetes management.Frontiers in public health · 2026Observational
- Glycemic Control in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes: From Challenges to Innovation.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The comparative efficacy of automated insulin delivery (AID) systems and other treatment options for type 1 diabetes, accounting for the certainty of evidence (CoE), is unknown. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov and included outpatient randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published until January 8, 2025, in people with type 1 diabetes with a three-week or longer intervention of AID systems (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023395492). We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses and used the Risk of Bias tool 2 and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methods to determine the CoE for each outcome. Findings: A total of 46 studies involving seven insulin treatment options and 4113 participants were included, of which 29 and 17 had low and moderate risks of bias, respectively. The intervention AID systems, including the hybrid closed-loop (HCL), advanced HCL (AHCL) and full closed-loop (FCL) systems, were evaluated in 20, 25 and 1 studies, respectively. The network meta-analysis did not indicate global inconsistencies but did indicate global publication bias for all glycaemic outcomes. The CoE varied between very low and high, depending on the treatment and outcome under consideration. Compared with pump therapy, the percentage of time in the range 70-180 mg/dl was greater with AID use (HCL: 19.7% [95% confidence interval 13.2%; 26.1%], moderate CoE; AHCL: 24.1% [18.2%; 29.9%], moderate CoE; FCL: 25.5% [11.1%; 39.9%], high CoE). Compared with pump therapy, the percentage of time above 180 mg/dl and 250 mg/dl was lower with AHCL, on average, by 19.6% (14.0%; 25.1%), moderate CoE, and 14.8% (8.8%; 20.8%), moderate CoE, respectively. The CoE was very uncertain regarding the overall effect of AID systems on the percentage of time below 70 mg/dl and 54 mg/dl and the HbA1c. Interpretation: AID systems improve glycaemic outcomes to varying degrees and with varying CoE. Funding: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF; grant 01KG2203).
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.