ArticleThe Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism2025
Changes in 90-Day Time in Range Among Youth With Type 1 Diabetes Initiating Different Automated Insulin Delivery Systems.
Article in The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of real-world evidence on commercially available automated insulin delivery systems in people with type 1 diabetes.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Pooled it
- What Makes the Difference? Predicting Glycemic Trajectories Following Initiation of Automated Insulin Delivery Systems in Youth With Type 1 Diabetes.Diabetes care · 2026Article
- Glycemic Outcomes and Device Engagement Over 18 Months Following Initiation of Two Different Automated Insulin Delivery Systems in American Youth With Type 1 Diabetes.Diabetes technology & therapeutics · 2026Article
- Real-world glycaemic outcomes observed with the use of Medtronic 780G, Tandem Control-IQ and Omnipod 5 automated insulin delivery systems.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2026Observational
- Changes in 90-Day Time in Range Among Youth With Type 1 Diabetes Initiating Different Automated Insulin Delivery Systems.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2025Article
- A Review of Real-World Evidence About the Use of Automated Insulin Delivery Systems in People With Type 1 Diabetes.Endocrine practice : official journal of the American College of Endocrinology and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists · 2025Review
- One-year evaluation of automated insulin delivery systems in adults with type 1 diabetes.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
contextGlycemic outcomes in youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in the United States using the 2 most common automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, Insulet Omnipod 5 (OP5) and Tandem Control IQ (CIQ), have not been compared.
objectiveWe performed the first head-to-head analysis of changes in glycemic metrics among youth initiating AID.
methodsThis single-center, retrospective study included youth < 21 years with T1D, who started OP5 or CIQ between January 2020 and December 2023, and had ≥ 70% continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) active time. We obtained 14-day baseline and 90-day CGM and AID data. A multiple linear regression model assessed for changes in 90-day time in range (TIR) according to AID system, adjusting for covariates. Subanalyses were conducted according to baseline TIR categories.
resultsAmong the 428 included youth, there were 214 (50%) in each AID group. OP5 users had a shorter T1D duration (1.6 vs 5.5 years, P < .001) and were more likely to have transitioned from multiple daily injections (76.1% vs 20.1%, P < .001). Baseline TIR was similar between groups (OP5 51.6% vs CIQ 53.1%, P = .70). 90-day TIR increased in both groups (P < .001), rising by 11.8 percentage points (95% CI [10.4, 13.3]) in OP5 users and 9.8 percentage points (95% CI [8.3, 11.2]) in CIQ users, without any significant between-group differences (P = .08). There were no between-group differences in 90-day TIR according to categorical baseline TIR.
conclusionThere are no clinically significant differences in 90-day TIR among youth with T1D initiating the 2 most commonly used AID systems. Patient preference and shared decision making should continue to guide the selection of AID systems.
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.