Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27696520›Full record

Trial reportDiabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association2017

Psychological outcomes of evening and night closed-loop insulin delivery under free living conditions in people with Type 1 diabetes: a 2-month randomized crossover trial.

J Kropff, J DeJong, S Del Favero, J Place, M Messori, B Coestier, A Farret, F Boscari, S Galasso, A Avogaro and 6 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
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

16 authors.

J KropffInternal Medicine F4-222, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J DeJongInternal Medicine F4-222, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
S Del FaveroInformation Engineering, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
J PlaceEndocrinology, Diabetes, Nutrition, Montpellier University Hospital, Montpellier, France.
M MessoriCivil Engineering and Architecture, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
B CoestierEndocrinology, Diabetes, Nutrition, Montpellier University Hospital, Montpellier, France.
A FarretEndocrinology, Diabetes, Nutrition, Montpellier University Hospital, Montpellier, France.
F BoscariInternal Medicine, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
S GalassoInternal Medicine, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
A AvogaroInternal Medicine, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
D BruttomessoInternal Medicine, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
C CobelliInformation Engineering, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
E RenardEndocrinology, Diabetes, Nutrition, Montpellier University Hospital, Montpellier, France.
L MagniCivil Engineering and Architecture, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
J H DeVriesInternal Medicine F4-222, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
AP@home consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo assess the impact on fear of hypoglycaemia and treatment satisfaction with an artificial pancreas system used for 2 consecutive months, as well as participant acceptance of the artificial pancreas system.

methodsIn a randomized crossover trial patient-related outcomes associated with an evening-and-night artificial pancreas and sensor-augmented pump therapy were compared. Both intervention periods lasted 8 weeks. The artificial pancreas acceptance questionnaire (range 0-90, higher scores better), Hypoglycaemia Fear Survey II (range 0-72, higher scores worse) and Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (range 0-36, higher scores better) were completed by 32 participants. Semi-structured interviews were conducted after study completion in a subset of six participants. Outcomes were compared using a repeated-measures anova model or paired t-test when appropriate.

resultsThe total artificial pancreas acceptance questionnaire score at the end of the artificial pancreas period was 69.1 (sd 14.7; 95% CI 63.5, 74.7), indicating a positive attitude towards the artificial pancreas. No significant differences were found among the scores at baseline, end of sensor-augmented pump therapy period or end of the artificial pancreas period with regard to fear of hypoglycaemia [28.2 (sd 17.5), 23.5 (sd 16.6) and 23.5 (sd 16.7), respectively; P = 0.099] or diabetes treatment satisfaction [29.0 (sd 3.9), 28.2 (sd 5.2) and 28.0 (sd 7.1), respectively; P = 0.43]. Themes frequently mentioned in the interviews were 'positive effects at work', 'improved blood glucose', 'fewer worries about blood glucose', but also 'frequent alarms', 'technological issues' and 'demand for an all-in-one device'.

conclusionsThe psychological outcomes of artificial pancreas and sensor-augmented pump therapy were similar. Current artificial pancreas technology is promising but user concerns should be taken into account to ensure utility of these systems.

Indexed as

Insulin Infusion SystemsPancreas, ArtificialPatient SatisfactionAdultBlood GlucoseCross-Over StudiesDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1FearFemaleHumansHypoglycemiaHypoglycemic AgentsInsulinMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesBlood GlucoseHypoglycemic AgentsInsulin

Identifiers

PMID27696520
PMCPMC5248649

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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 OpenQuestion graph.