Cost-Effectiveness of Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring Versus Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Systems in Type 1 Diabetes: Comment on Jendle et al.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Response to: Letter to the Editor with Regard to the Cost-Effectiveness of Hybrid Closed-Loop Systems Versus Multiple Daily Injections Plus Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Type 1 Diabetes in the Netherlands.Advances in therapy · 2023
   Article
2. A Response to: Letter to the Editor with Regard to the Cost-Effectiveness of an Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System in People with Type 1 Diabetes: A Health Economic Analysis in Sweden.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2022
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as