Diabetes care · 2025
Effects of Modern Glucose Monitoring and Insulin Delivery Technologies on Patient-Reported Outcomes and Experiences in Individuals With Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gao Miao, Saravanan Swathi, Munyombwe Theresa, Speight Jane, Hill Andrew J, Traviss-Turner Gemma, Ajjan Ramzi A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Use of technology is central to the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D), while patient reported outcomes measures (PROMs) can support in the management of these individuals.
PURPOSE: To assess the effect of diabetes technologies on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in type 1 diabetes (T1D).
DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Library CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for relevant articles from 2013 to August 2025.
STUDY SELECTION: We included longitudinal diabetes technology studies assessing validated PROMs in nonpregnant adults with T1D.
DATA EXTRACTION: Study characteristics and PROM data were extracted, and standardized mean differences (SMDs) for PROs were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis.
DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 4,885 articles, comprising 81 independent studies (n = 19,148 participants) and 70 different PROMs. The Hypoglycemia Fear Survey (HFS) was most commonly used (k = 39 studies), followed by the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (status [DTSQs] or change version [DTSQc]; k = 38), Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS; k = 25), and Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) scale (k = 24). Technology use was associated with lower HFS total score compared with control (SMD -0.177; 95% CI -0.319, -0.036; P = 0.014; I2 = 0.0%), with the largest effect observed in automated insulin device users. A moderate positive effect of diabetes technologies was observed on DTSQs and DTSQc scores (SMD 0.429; 95% CI 0.206, 0.653; P < 0.001; I2 = 72.3%), with a small to moderate reduction in DDS and PAID scores (SMD -0.265; 95% CI -0.363, -0.166; P < 0.001; I2 = 0.0%).
LIMITATIONS: Differences in type of technology, varied use and incomplete reporting of PROMs, and different duration of studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes technologies offer psychological benefits in adults with T1D. The large number of reported PROMs suggests a need to standardize their use.
PURPOSE: To assess the effect of diabetes technologies on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in type 1 diabetes (T1D).
DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Library CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for relevant articles from 2013 to August 2025.
STUDY SELECTION: We included longitudinal diabetes technology studies assessing validated PROMs in nonpregnant adults with T1D.
DATA EXTRACTION: Study characteristics and PROM data were extracted, and standardized mean differences (SMDs) for PROs were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis.
DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 4,885 articles, comprising 81 independent studies (n = 19,148 participants) and 70 different PROMs. The Hypoglycemia Fear Survey (HFS) was most commonly used (k = 39 studies), followed by the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (status [DTSQs] or change version [DTSQc]; k = 38), Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS; k = 25), and Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) scale (k = 24). Technology use was associated with lower HFS total score compared with control (SMD -0.177; 95% CI -0.319, -0.036; P = 0.014; I2 = 0.0%), with the largest effect observed in automated insulin device users. A moderate positive effect of diabetes technologies was observed on DTSQs and DTSQc scores (SMD 0.429; 95% CI 0.206, 0.653; P < 0.001; I2 = 72.3%), with a small to moderate reduction in DDS and PAID scores (SMD -0.265; 95% CI -0.363, -0.166; P < 0.001; I2 = 0.0%).
LIMITATIONS: Differences in type of technology, varied use and incomplete reporting of PROMs, and different duration of studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes technologies offer psychological benefits in adults with T1D. The large number of reported PROMs suggests a need to standardize their use.