ReviewEndocrine2026
Automated insulin delivery in older adults with type 1 diabetes: evidence, limitations, and clinical perspectives.
Review in Endocrine, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAutomated insulin delivery (AID) systems have significantly improved the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D), leading to better glycemic control and reduced hypoglycemia. However, older adults (≥ 65 years) remain underrepresented in clinical trials, and evidence specific to this population is limited. DESIGN AND PATIENTS: This narrative review synthesizes current evidence on the efficacy, safety, and usability of AID systems in older adults (≥ 65 years) with T1D. A comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE/PubMed was conducted using the PICO framework to identify relevant RCTs, observational studies, and systematic reviews, supplemented by literature studies on cognitive, functional, and psychosocial factors impacting technology adoption.
resultsWhile data from randomized trials and meta-analyses in the general population consistently demonstrate improvements in time in range (TIR, 70-180 mg/dL) and reductions in hypoglycemia, evidence in older adults is still emerging. Frail individuals and those with multiple comorbidities are often underrepresented or excluded from current studies. Nevertheless, the available evidence suggests that many of these benefits are also maintained in older populations, particularly regarding hypoglycemia reduction. At the same time, factors such as cognitive impairment, functional limitations, caregiver dependence, and reduced digital literacy may affect the adoption and effective use of these technologies.
conclusionsAID systems appear effective and generally safe in selected older adults, with benefits in glycemic control and hypoglycemia reduction. However, given the marked heterogeneity of this population, further studies are needed to better define their role and applicability in routine clinical practice.
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.