Trial reportNutrients2023
In Silico Validation of Personalized Safe Intervals for Carbohydrate Counting Errors.
Trial report in Nutrients, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unmet needs in the treatment of type 1 diabetes: why is it so difficult to achieve an improvement in metabolic control?Nutrition & diabetes · 2024Review
- Assessing Carbohydrate Counting Accuracy: Current Limitations and Future Directions.Nutrients · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
For patients with Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), accurate carbohydrate counting (CC) is essential for successful blood glucose regulation. Unfortunately, mistakes are common and may lead to an incorrect dosage of prandial insulin. In this work, we aim to demonstrate that each person has their own limits for CC errors, which can be computed using patient-specific data. To validate the proposed method, we tested it using several scenarios to investigate the effect of different CC errors on postprandial blood glucose. Virtual subjects from the T1DM Simulator were used in a clinical trial involving 450 meals over 90 days, all following the same daily meal plan but with different intervals for CC errors near, below, and above the limit computed for each patient. The results show that CC errors within personalized limits led to acceptable postprandial glycemic fluctuations. In contrast, experiments where 50% and 97.5% of the meals present a CC error outside the computed safe interval revealed a pronounced degradation of the time in range. Given these results, we consider the proposed method for obtaining personalized limits for CC errors an excellent starting point for an initial assessment of patients' capabilities in CC and to provide appropriate ongoing education.
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.