SynthesisDiabetes/metabolism research and reviews2026
Professional Stakeholders' Perspectives on Early Screening for Type 1 Diabetes in Children: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Diabetes/metabolism research and reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Early screening for type 1 diabetes (T1D) is receiving increasing attention as presymptomatic screening initiatives and disease-modifying therapies continue to expand. However, the perspectives of professional stakeholders, who play a pivotal role in implementation, patient engagement, and health system preparedness, have not been systematically synthesised. We conducted a systematic review to examine professional views on paediatric early T1D screening. Following PRISMA guidelines, six databases (Medline, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ASSIA) and grey literature were searched through January 2026. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria, predominantly involving paediatricians and diabetes specialists; nurses, genetic counsellors, policymakers, and other healthcare professionals were represented in few studies. Methodological appraisal using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) identified recurring limitations in sample representativeness and potential nonresponse bias. Given the heterogeneity and primarily descriptive nature of the study design and outcomes, findings were synthesised narratively. Professional perspectives varied according to the population targeted, professional group studied, screening scenario, and the implementation context. Where directly compared, support was greater for at-risk than for general-population screening. Reported benefits included diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) prevention, earlier clinical engagement, and improved preparedness for families. However, concerns persisted regarding psychosocial burden, workforce capacity, and unclear referral and follow-up pathways. More favourable evaluations were reported in some structured programmes, although these findings may reflect reliance on existing infrastructures and targeted participant selection. By consolidating previously fragmented evidence, this review identifies recurring clinical, psychosocial, and organisational considerations relevant to paediatric T1D screening. These findings primarily reflect clinical perspectives and indicate conditional rather than uniform support. Further studies should evaluate how standardised pathways, professional training, and integrated psychosocial support affect the feasibility and acceptability of screening across different healthcare contexts.
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.