Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36279156›Full record

ArticleJMIR diabetes2022

Improved Glycemia and Quality of Life Among Loop Users: Analysis of Real-world Data From a Single Center.

Amy E Morrison, Kimberley Chong, Valerie Lai, Kate Farnsworth, Peter A Senior, Anna Lam

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR diabetes, 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. 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.

Amy E MorrisonDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3353-1863
Kimberley ChongDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8640-8733
Valerie LaiDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0187-8168
Kate FarnsworthDiabetes Action Canada, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4272-8131
Peter A SeniorDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1033-8673
Anna LamDepartment of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3667-5205

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite do-it-yourself automated insulin delivery being an unapproved method of insulin delivery, an increasing number of people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) worldwide are choosing to use Loop, a do-it-yourself automated insulin delivery system.

objectiveIn this study, we aimed to assess glycemic outcomes, safety, and the perceived impact on quality of life (QOL) in a local Edmonton cohort of known Loop users.

methodsAn observational study of adults with T1D who used Loop was performed. An assessment of glycemic and safety outcomes, HbA

resultsThe 24 adults with T1D who took part in this study 16 (67%) were female, with a median age of 33 (IQR 28-45) years, median duration of diabetes of 22 (IQR 17-32) years, median pre-Loop HbA

conclusionsThis local cohort of people with T1D demonstrated a beneficial effect of Loop use on both glycemic control and QOL, with no safety concerns being highlighted.

Indexed as

automated insulin deliveryclosed loopdo-it-yourselftype 1 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID36279156
PMCPMC9641512

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.