ArticleDiabetes & metabolism journal2026
Effectiveness of the Stage 4 Smart Insulin Pen DIA:CONN P8 for Glycemic Control in a Real-World Setting.
Article in Diabetes & metabolism journal, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated whether a stage 4 smart insulin pen (SIP) provides superior glycemic control compared with a traditional insulin pen (TIP) in individuals with intensively insulin-treated diabetes. Forty-two adults with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), multiple daily insulin injections, and no prior SIP use were included. After diabetes self-management education (DSME), the SIP group (n=21) initiated SIP, whereas the TIP group (n=21) continued their usual regimens. Glycemic metrics were assessed using CGM before and 2 weeks after DSME. Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in glycemic outcomes. However, SIP users exhibited superior improvements in the percentage of time in range, percentage of time below range (%TBR) <70 mg/dL, %TBR <54 mg/dL, and glycemic risk index compared with TIP users (between-group difference [BD] 11.0%, P=0.046; BD -2.6%, P=0.024; BD -0.9%, P=0.027; BD -18.2, P=0.022, respectively). These findings suggest that SIP, with its bolus calculation and CGM integration, is associated with improved glycemic outcomes in adults with intensively insulin-treated diabetes.
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.