Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37431949›Full record

Observational studyJournal of diabetes science and technology2025

Real-World Performance of First- Versus Second-Generation Automated Insulin Delivery Systems on a Pediatric Population With Type 1 Diabetes: A One-Year Observational Study.

Bruno Bombaci, Stefano Passanisi, Mariella Valenzise, Fabio Macrì, Marco Calderone, Senad Hasaj, Sofia Zullo, Giuseppina Salzano, Fortunato Lombardo

Open access · greenAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Real-World Evidence of Automated Insulin Delivery System Use.Diabetes technology & therapeutics · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. 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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bruno BombaciDepartment of Human Pathology in Adult and Developmental Age "Gaetano Barresi," University of Messina, Messina, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8664-1025
Stefano PassanisiDepartment of Human Pathology in Adult and Developmental Age "Gaetano Barresi," University of Messina, Messina, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4369-7798
Mariella ValenziseDepartment of Human Pathology in Adult and Developmental Age "Gaetano Barresi," University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
Fabio MacrìDepartment of Human Pathology in Adult and Developmental Age "Gaetano Barresi," University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
Marco CalderoneDepartment of Human Pathology in Adult and Developmental Age "Gaetano Barresi," University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
Senad HasajDepartment of Human Pathology in Adult and Developmental Age "Gaetano Barresi," University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
Sofia ZulloDepartment of Human Pathology in Adult and Developmental Age "Gaetano Barresi," University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
Giuseppina SalzanoDepartment of Human Pathology in Adult and Developmental Age "Gaetano Barresi," University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
Fortunato LombardoDepartment of Human Pathology in Adult and Developmental Age "Gaetano Barresi," University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
University of Messina · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this single-center observational study was to assess the real-world performance of first- and second-generation automated insulin delivery (AID) systems in a cohort of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes over a one-year follow-up.

methodsDemographic, anamnestic, and clinical data of the study cohort were collected at the start of automatic mode. Data on continuous glucose monitoring metrics, system settings, insulin requirements, and anthropometric parameters at three different time points (start period, six months, 12 months) were retrospectively gathered and statistically analyzed.

resultsFifty-four individuals (55.6% of females) aged 7 to 18 years switching to AID therapy were included in the analysis. Two weeks after starting automatic mode, subjects using advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) showed a better response than hybrid closed-loop (HCL) users in terms of time in range (

conclusionsBoth systems showed sustained and successful glycemic outcomes in the first year of use. However, AHCL users achieved tighter glycemic targets, without an increase of hypoglycemia risk. Improved usability of the device may also have contributed to optimal glycemic outcomes by ensuring better continuity of the automatic mode activation.

Indexed as

Blood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1Hypoglycemic AgentsInsulinInsulin Infusion SystemsAdolescentChildFemaleGlycemic ControlHumansMaleRetrospective StudiesBlood GlucoseHypoglycemic AgentsInsulinadvanced hybrid closed-loopchildrencontinuous glucose monitoringinsulin pumpMiniMed 670GMiniMed 780G

Identifiers

PMID37431949
PMCPMC11688693
OpenAlexW4383871997

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.