ReviewJournal of the Endocrine Society2026
US race/ethnic disparities in diabetes technologies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 950 000 individuals.
Review in Journal of the Endocrine Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To provide a descriptive summary and to quantitatively examine racial and ethnic disparities in the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) among people living with diabetes in the United States. Research Design and Methods: We followed the Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD420251124678). Search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane up to August 2025. Observational studies were included if they (1) were conducted in the United States, (2) evaluated the use of CGM/CSII across different races/ethnic groups, and (3) reported odds ratios (ORs) for between-group comparisons. Three-level random-effect meta-analyses examined OR in the use of CGM/CSII across different groups: Non-Hispanic White (NHW; reference group) vs Black/African American, Hispanic, Asian, and Other. Subgroup analyses were conducted for children vs adults, and type 1 vs type 2 diabetes. Results: Totally, 1737 studies were screened, and 18 studies were included (N = 955 556 individuals). Most participants were NHW (70.9%). Approximately 40% of individuals had type 2 diabetes, and 98.9% were adults. Black/African Americans (OR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.38-0.60), Hispanics (OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.50-0.69), and "Other" (OR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.58-0.83) were less likely to use CGM, relative to NHW individuals, while Asians were equally likely. Black/African Americans (OR = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.23-0.42) and Hispanics (OR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.42-0.55) were less likely to use a CSII when compared to NHW. No analysis was conducted for "Asian" or "Other." Limitations include moderate/substantial heterogeneity and reliance on electronic medical record data. Conclusion: Racial and ethnic disparities exist in the use of diabetes technologies. Its recognition is essential to advance solutions that promote equitable care in 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.