ArticleDiabetes, obesity & metabolism2026
In-flight glycaemic control using automated insulin delivery systems: A within-subject comparative pilot study.
Article in Diabetes, obesity & metabolism, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- In-flight glycaemic control using automated insulin delivery systems: A within-subject comparative pilot study.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAutomated insulin delivery systems (AID) are increasingly used by people living with type 1 diabetes, but their functionality during air travel remains insufficiently studied. Some concerns have arisen regarding safety using AID systems under flight conditions, particularly related to potential insulin delivery errors induced by cabin pressure changes.
methodsThis study assessed the safety and efficacy commercial AIDs in 20 adults with type 1 diabetes (age: 37.9 ± 12.8 years, HbA1c: 52.3 ± 4.9 mmol/mol, TIR: 74 ± 9.8%, diabetes duration: 19.25 ± 10.6 years) during mid-haul commercial flights and matched ground-based conditions (MiniMed780G; Omnipod 5; Control-IQ; and CamAPS FX with YpsoPump, n = 5 per system). Outcomes included time in range (TIR, 3.9-10.0 mmol/L), time in tight range (TITR, 3.9-7.8 mmol/L), time above range 1 (TAR1, 10.1-13.9 mmol/L), time above range 2 (TAR2, >13.9 mmol/L), time below range 1 (TBR1, 3.0-3.8 mmol/L), time below range 2 (TBR2, <3.0 mmol/L), and total daily insulin doses.
resultsOverall TIR was 88.2 ± 13.5% in-flight versus 82.1 ± 17.7% on-ground. The mean difference in TIR was 4.6%, (95% CI: -5.0- 14.2). Other overall metrics (in-flight versus on-ground) were: TITR = 67.7 ± 19.4% vs. 64.2 ± 18.1%, TAR = 7.1 ± 10.5% vs. 12.0 ± 13.8% and TBR = 4.7 ± 7.2% vs. 5.9 ± 15.7%. Insulin delivery was slightly increased in-flight (25.4 ± 17.6 IU vs. 18.7 ± 11.6 IU), driven by bolus dosing (17.8 ± 13.3 IU vs. 11.9 ± 6.6 IU). No episodes of level 2 hypoglycaemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, or device failure occurred.
conclusionsAID systems maintained robust glycaemic control and safety during commercial flights, comparable to ground-based conditions. These data support the feasibility of in-flight AIDs use and provide a basis for future regulatory and clinical practice updates. Larger, multicenter studies are needed to generalize findings.
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.