Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40925746›Full record

Observational studyDiabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association2025

Impact of Omnipod 5 automated insulin delivery on continuous glucose monitoring metrics and predictors of improvement in time in range.

Roland H Stimson, Mark W J Strachan, Shareen Forbes, Rohana J Wright, Scott D Mackenzie, Gayle McRobert, Emily M McMurray, Marcus J Lyall, Anna R Dover, Fraser W Gibb

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study 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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Transitioning to Omnipod 5Biomedicines · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
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

10 authors.

Roland H StimsonEdinburgh Centre for Endocrinology & Diabetes, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK.
Mark W J StrachanEdinburgh Centre for Endocrinology & Diabetes, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK.
Shareen ForbesEdinburgh Centre for Endocrinology & Diabetes, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9127-0641
Rohana J WrightEdinburgh Centre for Endocrinology & Diabetes, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK.
Scott D MackenzieEdinburgh Centre for Endocrinology & Diabetes, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK.
Gayle McRobertEdinburgh Centre for Endocrinology & Diabetes, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK.
Emily M McMurrayEdinburgh Centre for Endocrinology & Diabetes, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK.
Marcus J LyallEdinburgh Centre for Endocrinology & Diabetes, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK.
Anna R DoverEdinburgh Centre for Endocrinology & Diabetes, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK.
Fraser W GibbEdinburgh Centre for Endocrinology & Diabetes, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5576-6463

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThis study aimed to assess the impact of the Omnipod 5 automated insulin delivery (AID) system on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics, HbA1c, and weight in a real-world setting. Additionally, independent predictors of glycaemic response were assessed.

methodsObservational analysis of adults with type 1 diabetes using Omnipod 5 (n = 353). Paired data on CGM metrics (n = 268), HbA1c (n = 193), and weight (n = 173) were collected at baseline and compared after median of 191, 120, and 221 days, respectively. Independent predictors of TIR response (≥5%) and HbA1c (≥5 mmol/mol) were assessed.

resultsOmnipod 5 use was associated with improved TIR (+16%, p < 0.001) and a reduction in HbA1c (-3 mmol/mol, p < 0.001). The greatest improvements (-7 mmol/mol, p < 0.001) were observed in individuals with elevated baseline HbA1c (≥58 mmol/mol). Sensor choice (Dexcom G6 vs. Freestyle Libre 2 Plus) influenced time in full auto mode (94% vs. 96%, p < 0.001) but did not affect the likelihood of improved TIR or HbA1c. Logistic regression identified baseline HbA1c (OR 1.24 per mmol/mol, p < 0.001) as the main association with improved HbA1c. Similarly, baseline TIR was associated with improvement in TIR (OR 0.83 per %, p < 0.001). Greater time in automation and using the lowest glucose target were also associated with improved outcomes.

conclusionsOmnipod 5 is associated with significant and sustained improvements in CGM metrics and HbA1c, particularly in individuals with higher baseline HbA1c. The results suggest the potential benefits of prioritizing AID for individuals at greatest risk of complications.

Indexed as

Blood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1Hypoglycemic AgentsInsulinInsulin Infusion SystemsAdultContinuous Glucose MonitoringFemaleGlycated HemoglobinGlycemic ControlHumansMaleMiddle AgedBlood GlucoseGlycated Hemoglobinhemoglobin A1c protein, humanHypoglycemic AgentsInsulincontinuous glucose monitoringCSIIinsulin therapytype 1 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID40925746
PMCPMC12535326

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.