Cited by 1,030Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Treatment and Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Six-Month Randomized, Multicenter Trial of Closed-Loop Control in Type 1 Diabetes

Open access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Closed-loop systems that automate insulin delivery may improve glycemic outcomes in patients with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: In this 6-month randomized, multicenter trial, patients with type 1 diabetes were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive treatment with a closed-loop system (closed-loop group) or a sensor-augmented pump (control group). The primary outcome was the percentage of time that the blood glucose level was within the target range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter (3.9 to 10.0 mmol per liter), as measured by continuous glucose monitoring. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients underwent randomization; 112 were assigned to the closed-loop group, and 56 were assigned to the control group. The age range of the patients was 14 to 71 years, and the glycated hemoglobin level ranged from 5.4 to 10.6%. All 168 patients completed the trial. The mean (±SD) percentage of time that the glucose level was within the target range increased in the closed-loop group from 61±17% at baseline to 71±12% during the 6 months and remained unchanged at 59±14% in the control group (mean adjusted difference, 11 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 14; P<0.001). The results with regard to the main secondary outcomes (percentage of time that the glucose level was >180 mg per deciliter, mean glucose level, glycated hemoglobin level, and percentage of time that the glucose level was <70 mg per deciliter or <54 mg per deciliter [3.0 mmol per liter]) all met the prespecified hierarchical criterion for significance, favoring the closed-loop system. The mean difference (closed loop minus control) in the percentage of time that the blood glucose level was lower than 70 mg per deciliter was -0.88 percentage points (95% CI, -1.19 to -0.57; P<0.001). The mean adjusted difference in glycated hemoglobin level after 6 months was -0.33 percentage points (95% CI, -0.53 to -0.13; P = 0.001). In the closed-loop group, the median percentage of time that the system was in closed-loop mode was 90% over 6 months. No serious hypoglycemic events occurred in either group; one episode of diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in the closed-loop group. CONCLUSIONS: In this 6-month trial involving patients with type 1 diabetes, the use of a closed-loop system was associated with a greater percentage of time spent in a target glycemic range than the use of a sensor-augmented insulin pump. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; iDCL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03563313.).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa1907863

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 17 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–600 of 999

Metadata

Authors
Brown, S. A., Kovatchev, B. P., Raghinaru, D., Lum, J. W., Buckingham, B. A., Kudva, Y. C., Laffel, L. M., Levy, C. J., Pinsker, J. E., Wadwa, R. P., Dassau, E., Doyle, F. J., Anderson, S. M., Church, M. M., Dadlani, V., Ekhlaspour, L., Forlenza, G. P., Isganaitis, E., Lam, D. W., Kollman, C., & Beck, R. W.
Affiliations
  • Sansum Diabetes Research Institute (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Joslin Diabetes Center (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2019-10-31
Volume
381
Issue
18
Pages
1707-1717
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2981310284
Cited by
1,030
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 128 · 2025: 134 · 2024: 140 · 2023: 180 · 2022: 158 · 2021: 156 · 2020: 125 · 2019: 8
FWCI
90.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (UC4 DK108483)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
Keywords
type 1 diabetes, artificial pancreas, sensor-augmented pump, continuous glucose monitoring, glycemic control, HbA1c, hypoglycemia, hyperglycemia, insulin pump therapy, glycemic variability, HbA1c reduction, hypoglycemia risk reduction, HbA1c thresholds, hypoglycemia risk
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Equipment Design, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Insulin Infusion Systems, Male, Middle Aged, Pancreas, Artificial, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review