ReviewJournal of diabetes science and technology2018
Bolus Advisors: Sources of Error, Targets for Improvement.
Review in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Insulin Titration Guidelines for Patients With Type 1 Diabetes: It Is About Time!Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2023Review
- Feature-Based Machine Learning Model for Real-Time Hypoglycemia Prediction.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2021Article
- LSTMs and Deep Residual Networks for Carbohydrate and Bolus Recommendations in Type 1 Diabetes Management.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Improved Low-Glucose Predictive Alerts Based on Sustained Hypoglycemia: Model Development and Validation Study.JMIR diabetes · 2021Article
- An Insulin Bolus Advisor for Type 1 Diabetes Using Deep Reinforcement Learning.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Issues and Ideas in Bolus Advisor Research With Commentary on "A Methodology to Compare Insulin Dosing Algorithms in Real-Life Settings".Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2017Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bolus advisors that are designed to improve the accuracy of individual bolus doses relative to a meal's carb content and the current glucose have not substantially changed since they were introduced 15 years ago despite an obvious need for enhancement and innovation. Although some glycemic benefits have been demonstrated, bolus advisors largely ignore the large amounts of clinical data they gather that could have a significant impact on glucose outcomes. Concerns have also been raised regarding the aggressive nature of largely unpublished or poorly explained bolus advisor algorithms. Hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia remain significant risks due to inaccurate bolus advisor settings and the absence of tracking or an inappropriate handling of bolus on board. This review covers common sources for bolus advisor error such as the selection of physiologically inappropriate bolus advisor settings, the use of short duration of insulin action times, poor algorithm logic that tends to cover all carb intake fully, and an excessive reliance on simplistic dosing algorithms. As well as discussing these areas, we provide 21 ways to improve current bolus calculators.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.