ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2022
Adjustment of Insulin Pump Settings in Type 1 Diabetes Management: Advisor Pro Device Compared to Physicians' Recommendations.
Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Toward Personalized Decision Support Systems for Type 1 Diabetes: Integrating Psychobehavioral Factors and Glycemic Control.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2025Trial
- Artificial intelligence-driven therapeutics for disease modification in type 1 diabetes: a digital public health and clinical translation framework.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Therapeutic Patient Education in the Digital Era: Opportunities and Challenges in Diabetes Care.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2025Review
- Diabetes management in the era of artificial intelligence.Archives of medical sciences. Atherosclerotic diseases · 2024Article
- Applications of Clinical Decision Support Systems in Diabetes Care: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- What is the future of artificial intelligence in obstetrics? A qualitative study among healthcare professionals.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Advances in Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Integrated Devices for Management of Diabetes with Insulin-Based Therapy: Improvement in Glycemic Control.Diabetes & metabolism journal · 2023Review
- Updates of precision medicine in type 2 diabetes.Cambridge prisms. Precision medicine · 2023Review
- Diabetes Technology Meeting 2021.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2022Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Perioperative Medicine: A Proposed Common Language With Applications to FDA-Approved Devices.Frontiers in digital health · 2022Review
- Diabetes Technology Meeting 2020.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors at 16 institutions in 11 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo compare insulin dose adjustments made by physicians to those made by an artificial intelligence-based decision support system, the Advisor Pro, in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using an insulin pump and self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG).
methodsThis was a multinational, non-interventional study surveying 17 physicians from 11 countries. Each physician was asked to provide insulin dose adjustments for the settings of the pump including basal rate, carbohydrate-to-insulin ratios (CRs), and correction factors (CFs) for 15 data sets of pumps and SMBG of people with T1D (mean age 18.4 ± 4.8 years; eight females; mean glycated hemoglobin 8.2% ± 1.4% [66 ± 11mmol/mol]). The recommendations were compared among the physicians and between the physicians and the Advisor Pro. The study endpoint was the percentage of comparison points for which there was an agreement on the direction of insulin dose adjustments.
resultsThe percentage (mean ± SD) of agreement among the physicians on the direction of insulin pump dose adjustments was 51.8% ± 9.2%, 54.2% ± 6.4%, and 49.8% ± 11.6% for the basal, CR, and CF, respectively. The automated recommendations of the Advisor Pro on the direction of insulin dose adjustments were comparable )49.5% ± 6.4%, 55.3% ± 8.7%, and 47.6% ± 14.4% for the basal rate, CR, and CF, respectively( and noninferior to those provided by physicians. The mean absolute difference in magnitude of change between physicians was 17.1% ± 13.1%, 14.6% ± 8.4%, and 23.9% ± 18.6% for the basal, CR, and CF, respectively, and comparable to the Advisor Pro 11.7% ± 9.7%, 10.1% ± 4.5%, and 25.5% ± 19.5%, respectively, significant for basal and CR.
conclusionsConsiderable differences in the recommendations for changes in insulin dosing were observed among physicians. Since automated recommendations by the Advisor Pro were similar to those given by physicians, it could be considered a useful tool to manage T1D.
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.