ReviewJournal of diabetes science and technology2025
Scoping Review-Diabetes Technology for Individuals on Kidney Replacement Therapy (Dialysis): Current Trends and Future Directions.
Review in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Technology in Diabetes: A Year in Review.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2026Review
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
aimThis review aims to map the existing literature on the use of diabetes technology in people receiving dialysis, with a focus on utilization, accuracy, and effectiveness.
methodsA scoping review was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, with systematic searches of Medline, Embase, and CINAHL for studies on diabetes technologies in dialysis populations.
resultsThe search identified 1060 continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and 1467 continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion or automated insulin delivery (CSII/AID) records, with 64 studies included. Eighteen studies assessed CGM accuracy, reporting mean absolute relative difference (MARD) values ranging from 8.1% to 29%, with over 97% of readings falling within Clarke error grid zones A or B. Thirteen studies compared glycemic markers, finding that HbA
conclusionThis review highlights the potential of CGM and AID to improve diabetes outcomes in people on dialysis. While their clinical utility is evident, broader access and further research are needed to optimize their use in this high-risk population.
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.