ReviewCurrent diabetes reports2018
App-Based Insulin Calculators: Current and Future State.
Review in Current diabetes reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Randomised Controlled Multicentre Trial to Investigate the Effectiveness of a Mobile Artificial Intelligence Solution for Diabetes Adapted Care: The MELISSA Trial Protocol.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Article
- Designing a Carbohydrate Counting App for Young Adults With Type 1 Diabetes: Usability Testing Interview Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- 7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2026.Diabetes care · 2026Review
- Bridging the Gap in Carbohydrate Counting With a Mobile App: Needs Assessment Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- 7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2025.Diabetes care · 2025Review
- Connected Insulin Pens and Pen Caps: Expanding Diabetes Technology Access and Adoption.Diabetes spectrum : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2025Article
- Anti-oxidative and immunological role of Cyclocarya paliurus polysaccharide on the liver injury of diabetic rats.Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan · 2024Article
- 7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024.Diabetes care · 2024Review
- A Smartphone-Based Application to Assist Insulin Titration in Patients Undergoing Basal Insulin-Supported Oral Antidiabetic Treatment.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2023Article
- Digital therapeutics in the clinic.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2023Review
- 7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023.Diabetes care · 2023Review
- Comparison of three insulin bolus calculators to increase time in range of glycemia in a group of poorly controlled adults Type 1 diabetes in a Brazilian public health service.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2022Article
- Adherence and Persistence to Insulin Therapy in People with Diabetes: Impact of Connected Insulin Pen Delivery Ecosystem.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2022Review
- Automated Bolus Calculators and Connected Insulin Pens: A Smart Combination for Multiple Daily Injection Insulin Therapy.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2022Article
- Dietary Aspects to Incorporate in the Creation of a Mobile Image-Based Dietary Assessment Tool to Manage and Improve Diabetes.Nutrients · 2021Review
- Diabetology 4.0: Scoping Review of Novel Insights and Possibilities Offered by Digitalization.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Present and Future of Digital Health in Diabetes and Metabolic Disease.Diabetes & metabolism journal · 2020Review
- Advanced Diabetes Management Using Artificial Intelligence and Continuous Glucose Monitoring Sensors.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Has Technology Improved Diabetes Management in Relation to Age, Gender, and Ethnicity?Current diabetes reports · 2019Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewTo perform a comprehensive literature review and critical assessment of peer-reviewed manuscripts addressing the efficacy, safety, or usability of insulin calculator apps. RECENT
findingsManaging diabetes with insulin can be complex, and literacy and numeracy skills pose barriers to manual insulin dose calculations. App-based insulin calculators are promising tools to help people with diabetes administer insulin safely and have potential to improve glycemic control. While a large number of apps which assist with insulin dosing are available, there is limited data evaluating their efficacy, safety, and usability. Recently, a need for regulatory oversight has been recognized, but few apps meet federal standards. Thus, choosing an appropriate app is challenging for both patients and providers. An electronic literature review was performed to identify insulin calculator apps with either evidence for efficacy, safety or usability published in peer-reviewed literature or with FDA/CE approval. Twenty apps were identified intended for use by patients with diabetes on insulin. Of these, nine included insulin calculators. Summaries of each app, including pros and cons, are provided. Insulin-calculator apps have the potential to improve self-management of diabetes. While current literature demonstrates improvements in quality of life and glycemic control after use of these programs, larger trials are needed to collect outcome and safety data. Also, further human factor analysis is needed to assure these apps will be adopted appropriately by people with diabetes. App features including efficacy and safety data need to be easily available for consumer review and decision making. Higher standards need to be set for app developers to ensure safety and efficacy.
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.