A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

The effect of bolus advisors on glycaemic parameters in adults with diabetes on intensive insulin therapy: A systematic review with meta-analysis. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study aimed to systematically review and analyze randomized controlled trials and cohort studies to assess the impact of bolus advisors on blood sugar levels in adults with diabetes.
  • An electronic search was performed across multiple databases, including PubMed and the Cochrane Library, with results from 18 trials involving 1645 adults.
  • The findings indicated that bolus advisors led to a slight reduction in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels and improved treatment satisfaction, suggesting potential benefits for diabetes management, although they did not significantly reduce hypoglycemic events.

Article Abstract

Aim: To conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis to provide a comprehensive synthesis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies investigating the effects of currently available bolus advisors on glycaemic parameters in adults with diabetes.

Materials And Methods: An electronic search of PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted in December 2022. The risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. (Standardized) mean difference (MD) was selected to determine the difference in continuous outcomes between the groups. A random-effects model meta-analysis and meta-regression were performed. This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022374588).

Results: A total of 18 RCTs involving 1645 adults (50% females) with a median glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration of 8.45% (7.95%-9.30%) were included. The majority of participants had type 1 diabetes (N = 1510, 92%) and were on multiple daily injections (N = 1173, 71%). Twelve of the 18 trials had low risk of bias. The meta-analysis of 10 studies with available data on HbA1c showed that the use of a bolus advisor modestly reduced HbA1c compared to standard treatment (MD -011%, 95% confidence interval -0.22 to -0.01; I = 0%). This effect was accompanied by small improvements in low blood glucose index and treatment satisfaction, but not with reductions in hypoglycaemic events or changes in other secondary outcomes.

Conclusion: Use of a bolus advisor is associated with slightly better glucose control and treatment satisfaction in people with diabetes on intensive insulin treatment. Future studies should investigate whether personalizing bolus advisors using artificial intelligence technology can enhance these effects.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dom.15521DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

bolus advisors
12
systematic review
12
risk bias
12
advisors glycaemic
8
glycaemic parameters
8
parameters adults
8
diabetes intensive
8
intensive insulin
8
review meta-analysis
8
bolus advisor
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!