Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34637553›Full record

ArticleDiabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association2022

#WeAreNotWaiting DIY artificial pancreas systems and challenges for the law.

Rachael Dickson, Jessica Bell, Amber Dar, Laura Downey, Victoria Moore, Muireann Quigley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Towards better Diabetes Data Rights: Data protection, data 'ownership', and developing a patient charter.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2026
    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

6 authors.

Rachael DicksonUniversity of Birmingham Law School, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1911-9450
Jessica BellUniversity of Warwick Law School, Coventry, UK.
Amber DarUniversity of Birmingham Law School, Birmingham, UK.
Laura DowneyUniversity of Birmingham Law School, Birmingham, UK.
Victoria MooreThe University of Manchester School of Social Sciences, Manchester, UK.
Muireann QuigleyUniversity of Birmingham Law School, Birmingham, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 212507/Z/18/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Commercial hybrid closed-loop systems are becoming more readily available, yet the number of DIY artificial pancreas system (DIY APS) users continues to rise. These DIY systems have not gone through the usual regulatory approvals processes, and, thus, present a number of legal difficulties for a number of actors, including clinicians, parents who build DIY APS for their children, and users themselves. These issues have so far received insufficient attention. Due to the complex constellation of actors involved in both development of DIY APSs and in its deployment, it is not currently clear who, and to what extent, different parties might (successfully) be held liable if something goes wrong. Despite this uncertainty, unless and until clearer guidance is issued by relevant bodies, or a case appears before the courts which clarifies the situation, existing legal principles apply. In this article, we examine some of these to shed light on how the law would likely be applied if harm were to result from the use of a DIY APS.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1Pancreas, ArtificialChildHumansInsulin Infusion SystemsParentsclinical diabetesdevicesmedical lawpatients

Identifiers

PMID34637553
PMCPMC7619392

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.