CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 63

Skin Problems Associated with Insulin Pumps and Sensors in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: A Cross-Sectional Study

Berg, Anna Korsgaard, Nørgaard, Kirsten, Thyssen, Jacob P., Zachariae, Claus, Hommel, Eva, Rytter, Karen, Svensson, Jannet·2018·Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
DOI 10.1089/dia.2018.0088
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background In the future, widespread use of closed-loop infusion (artificial pancreas) systems to treat type 1 diabetes (T1D) may significantly improve glycemic control and enhance treatment flexibility. However, the infusion sets and plasters necessary for these treatments can cause dermatological complications that may hamper the spread of the new technology; few studies have investigated these complications in adults. The aim of this study was to describe the dermatological complications associated with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in adults. Methods A total of 118 adult patients from two different diabetes clinics completed a questionnaire concerning the dermatological complications associated with their CSII and/or CGM treatment, other treatment variables, duration of diabetes, allergies, skin care, and other pathologies. Results CGM or CSII use was associated with current eczema, scars, and wounds. In total, 34% of CSII users and 35% of CGM users currently had one or more skin lesions due to the use of these devices. We found no significant association with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, a history of atopic dermatitis, or other skin pathologies. However, multivariate analysis revealed associations with a history of atopy and CSII-associated dermatological complications. Conclusions Dermatological complications were present in one in every three patients and represent a significant challenge to using CSII an…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/dia.2018.0088

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • For users of both CSII and CGM technologies, the combined application and intervals of device change can be burdensome because of numerous adhesive patch removals and increased risk of skin irritation, skin reactions, or adhesive tape allergies, with minimal days for recovery.

    “Thus, for users of both CSII and CGM technologies, the combined application and intervals of device change can be burdensome because of numerous adhesive patch removals and increased risk of skin irritation,5,6 skin reactions,5,6 or adhesive tape allergies,7 with minimal days for recovery.”

    From Evaluation of Extended Infusion Set Performance in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: Infusion Set Survival Rate and Glycemic Outcomes from a Pivotal Trial (2022) · cites this paper as [5]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Berg, A. K., Nørgaard, K., Thyssen, J. P., Zachariae, C., Hommel, E., Rytter, K., & Svensson, J.
Affiliations
  • Department of Pediatrics, Copenhagen Diabetes Research Center (CPH-DIRECT), Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev and Gentofte, Herlev, Denmark.
  • Faculty of Health Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
  • Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev and Gentofte, Hellerup, Denmark.
  • Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Gentofte, Denmark.
Venue
Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2018-07
Volume
20
Issue
7
Pages
475-482
ISSN
  • 1520-9156
  • 1557-8593
DOI
10.1089/dia.2018.0088
Cited by
63
References
5
Language
en
Licence
www.liebertpub.com/nv/resources-tools/text-and-data-mining-policy/121/ (tdm)

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