SynthesisDiabetes, obesity & metabolism2026
A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of real-world evidence on commercially available automated insulin delivery systems in people with type 1 diabetes.
Synthesis in Diabetes, obesity & metabolism, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 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
- 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
- Postprandial Glycemic Control With Automated Insulin Delivery With Control-IQ Technology: The Impact of Meal Composition.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Article
- The Emotional Burden and Behavioral Impacts of Alarms and Alerts Across the Spectrum of Diabetes Technology Use: a Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR diabetes · 2026Article
- International clinical opinion on transparency, standardisation, and calibration alignment in the performance evaluation of systems for continuous glucose monitoring.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Review
- Discordant real-world glycaemic outcomes with Omnipod™ 5 and MiniMed™ 780G in adults with type 1 diabetes: Why validated measures matter.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Article
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
Abstract
aimsAutomated insulin delivery (AID) is part of the standard of care for type 1 diabetes (T1D), but real-world evidence (RWE) comparing AID systems remains limited. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted for outcomes across commercially available AID systems in real-world settings. MATERIALS AND
methodsPubMed and Embase were searched to March 2025 for RWE studies of commercial AID systems in ambulatory people with T1D. Eligible studies had n ≥ 250 with ≥10 days of continuous glucose monitoring data. Main outcomes were time in range (TIR) and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). Random-effects meta-analyses with AID system as moderator were performed, including scenario analyses by age and optimal device settings.
resultsThirty-six records covering 34 studies with 635 463 users were included. Studies evaluated MiniMed™ 780G (n = 16), Control-IQ™ (n = 9), MiniMed™ 670G (n = 6), and other systems (≤3 studies each). Meta-analysis demonstrated frequently statistically significant between-system differences in TIR, ranging from 60.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 54.0 to 65.9) for Omnipod® 5 to 73.9% (95% CI 72.3 to 75.5) for MiniMed 780G. For HbA1c, estimates ranged from 6.5% (95% CI 5.4 to 7.7) for Loop to 7.0% (95% CI 6.7 to 7.4) for MiniMed 780G, although differences were not significant. Significant residual heterogeneity was observed. Age was an important effect modifier, with younger users experiencing less favourable outcomes. Optimal device settings improved glycaemic outcomes.
conclusionsRWE demonstrated differences in glycaemic outcomes, including TIR, between commercially available AID systems. User age influenced outcomes for all systems. Results must be interpreted cautiously given challenges and potential biases with RWE.
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.