ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Manual and Application-Based Carbohydrate Counting and Glycemic Control in Type 1 Diabetes Subjects: A Narrative Review.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Accuracy of ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude and DeepSeek in Carbohydrate Counting.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Article
- Adaptation of an mHealth Solution for the Nutritional Management of Diabetes in a Low- and Middle-Income Country: Pre-Post Mixed Methods Pilot Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Article
- Efficacy of carbohydrate counting in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Diabetology international · 2025Article
- Glycemic Control and Quality of Life Among People with Type 1 Diabetes: Relationships with Insulin Therapy and Carbohydrate Counting.Nutrients · 2025Article
- First validity testing of GluciQuizz, a French self-questionnaire evaluating carb-counting for patients with type 1 diabetes.PloS one · 2025Article
- Factors Associated with Carbohydrate Counting Adherence in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus in Brazil.Nutrients · 2024Article
- Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Type 1 diabetes (T1DM) is the most common chronic disease in young adults and children, which is treated with insulin, usually given as basal and boluses. Carbohydrate counting (CHOC) helps patients to determine the correct meal doses. The aim of this review is to study the effect of CHOC on glucose control, body weight, insulin dose and quality of life (QoL). The literature search was conducted using PubMed from January 2010 to October 2022. Studies included in this review are limited to randomized controlled studies involving an intervention group undergoing CHOC and a control group following the usual practice, measuring glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as a parameter of glucose control and involving only T1DM subjects. A total of ten articles were found to fulfill the criteria involving 1034 patients. Most of the studies showed a positive impact of CHOC on glucose control, especially in adults, where five out of six studies were statistically positive. However, in pediatrics, only two out of four showed a positive outcome. In all four studies using mobile applications, CHOC was better at controlling glucose. No difference was seen between the CHOC group and the control regarding the risk of severe hypoglycemia. In fact, two studies have shown lower hypoglycemia rates. No change in weight was observed in most of the studies (six out of eight). In subjects with T1DM, CHOC might provide better glucose control than traditional care without a significant increment in severe hypoglycemia or weight gain. Mobile application-based models showed promising results in glucose control.
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.