Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28990436›Full record

Trial reportJournal of diabetes science and technology2018

Acceptability of Implantable Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sensor.

Katharine D Barnard, Jort Kropff, Pratik Choudhary, Sankalpa Neupane, Stephen C Bain, Christoph Kapitza, Thomas Forst, Manuela Link, Colleen Mdingi, J Hans DeVries

Abstract readClinical TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report 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 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

10 authors.

Katharine D Barnard1 Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, UK.
Jort Kropff3 Department of Endocrinology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Pratik Choudhary4 King's College London, London, UK.
Sankalpa Neupane5 Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Stephen C Bain6 Joint Clinical Research Facility, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
Christoph Kapitza7 Profil, Neuss, Germany.
Thomas Forst8 Profil, Mainz, Germany.
Manuela Link9 Institut für Diabetes-Technologie Forschungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH an der Universität Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Colleen Mdingi10 Research, Senseonics Inc, Germantown, MD, USA.
J Hans DeVries3 Department of Endocrinology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReal-time continuous glucose monitoring is associated with significant benefits for diabetes management. Implantable sensors could overcome some challenges reportedly associated with device visibility, psychosocial functioning and sensor durability.

methodsA psychosocial assessment was conducted to determine acceptability and impact of an implantable continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensor as part of the PRECISE trial. Questionnaires were administered to participants comprising the Diabetes Distress Scale, the CGM impact scale, and bespoke device satisfaction.

resultsFifty-one participants across the United Kingdom (n = 10) and Germany (n = 41) completed the questionnaires. Of these, 90% had T1D, 50% followed an insulin pump therapy regimen, and 45% of the participants were previous CGM users. CGM Impact Scale results show 86% (n = 44) of participants reported feeling better (14% neutral) about their diabetes control with 90% CGM naïve participants and 81% previous CGM users reporting increased confidence about their diabetes management. Furthermore, 73% (n = 37) felt more safe (27% neutral) while sleeping and 78% (n = 39) more confident (22% neutral) about avoiding serious hypoglycemia. Responses correspond with an average improvement in HbA1c from 7.51 to 7.05 ( P < .0001) over the 90 days use of the CGM. Overall, the system was rated highly on ease of use, convenience and comfort. 84% would choose to be inserted again with 93% of CGM naïve participants (86% previous CGM users) reporting minimized burden of diabetes.

conclusionsImplantable CGM devices are acceptable to users and are evaluated favorably. The considerable majority of participants (93% of first time users and 77% previous CGM users) would like to continue using the system to help manage their diabetes more effectively.

Indexed as

Patient Acceptance of Health CareAdolescentAdultBlood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2FemaleHumansMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesBlood Glucosecontinuous glucose monitoringimplantablepsychosocialtype 1 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID28990436
PMCPMC6154244

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.