ArticleSports medicine - open2021
Comparing Two Treatment Approaches for Patients with Type 1 Diabetes During Aerobic Exercise: a Randomised, Crossover Study.
Article in Sports medicine - open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perceiving exertion in others: From interoception to exteroception.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Review
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn a randomised, counterbalanced, crossover design, eight men with type 1 diabetes (T1D; mean ± SD age, 27.6 ± 11.4 years) reduced insulin (INS) by 50% of their normal dose or consumed carbohydrates equivalent to 1 g of carbohydrate per kilogramme of their body weight without the usual insulin bolus (CARBS) over two sessions, held a week apart. Each session included standardised meals, a 45-min treadmill walk at 7.24 km h
resultsParticipants completing the INS intervention spent more time in normoglycaemia (242 ± 135 min vs 88 ± 132 min; P < 0.01) and less time in hyperglycaemia (41 ± 95 min vs 154 ± 125 min; P = 0.01) as compared to the CARBS intervention. Mild hypoglycaemia occurred in two participants during INS and no participants during CARBS. Furthermore, there was no significant difference for blood lactate, ketone, RPE, distance covered and predicted VO
conclusionBased on this pilot study, INS intervention appears to be the best approach for maintaining blood glucose levels in those with T1D during aerobic exercise, though this does need evaluation in other groups, including women, children and those with suboptimal glycaemic control.
trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12619001397101p . Registered 09 September 2019.
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.