Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38599884›Full record

Trial reportJournal of diabetes2024

Comparing Equil patch versus traditional catheter insulin pump in type 2 diabetes using continuous glucose monitoring metrics and profiles.

Yu-Jiao Li, Zi-Yue Shao, Yun-Qing Zhu, Da-Shuang Chen, Jian Zhu

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of diabetes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yu-Jiao LiDepartment of Endocrinology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1719-908X
Zi-Yue ShaoDepartment of Endocrinology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9307-0758
Yun-Qing ZhuDepartment of Endocrinology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6800-4866
Da-Shuang ChenDepartment of Endocrinology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4767-178X
Jian ZhuDepartment of Endocrinology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4629-9883
Nanjing Medical University · CNJiangnan University · CN

Funding

Medical Science and Technology Development Foundation, Nanjing Municipality Health Bureau JQX12006National Key Research and Development Program of China 2018YFC1314100
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsIt is not clear whether there are differences in glycemic control between the Equil patch and the MMT-712 insulin pump. Our objective was to compare two types of insulin pumps in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics and profiles.

methodsThis was a randomized case-crossover clinical trial. Participants were hospitalized and randomly allocated to two groups and underwent two types of insulin pump treatments (group A: Equil patch-Medtronic MMT-712 insulin pump; group B: Medtronic MMT-712-Equil patch insulin pump) separated by a 1-day washout period. Glycemic control was achieved after 7-8 days of insulin pump therapy. Each patient received CGM for 5 consecutive days (from day 1 to day 5). On day 3 of CGM performance, the Equil patch insulin pump treatment was switched to Medtronic MMT-712 insulin pump treatment at the same basal and bolus insulin doses or vice versa. CGM metrics and profiles including glycemic variability (GV), time in range (TIR, 3.9-10.0 mmol/L), time below range (TBR, <3.9 mmol/L), time above range (TAR, >10.0 mmol/L), and postprandial glucose excursions, as well as incidence of hypoglycemia.

resultsForty-six T2DM patients completed the study. There was no significant difference in parameters of daily GV and postprandial glucose excursions between the Equil patch insulin pump treatment and the Medtronic insulin pump treatment. Similarly, there was no between-treatment difference in TIR, TBR, and TAR, as well as the incidence of hypoglycemia.

conclusionThe Equil patch insulin pump was similar to the traditional MMT-712 insulin pump in terms of glycemic control. Equil patch insulin pump is a reliable tool for glycemic management of diabetes mellitus.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2HypoglycemiaBlood GlucoseBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringCathetersContinuous Glucose MonitoringCross-Over StudiesGlucoseHumansHypoglycemic AgentsInsulinBlood GlucoseGlucoseHypoglycemic AgentsInsulincontinuous glucose monitoringpatch insulin pumpT2DM

Identifiers

PMID38599884
PMCPMC11006617
OpenAlexW4394686178

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.