Cited by 94Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Treatment and Management

Effects of advanced carbohydrate counting in patients with Type 1 diabetes: a systematic review

Schmidt, S., Schelde, B., Nørgaard, K.·2014·Diabetic Medicine

Abstract

Aim Advanced carbohydrate counting, a systematic method for insulin bolus calculation, is recommended in the management of type 1 diabetes. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize all available evidence from randomized and observational studies of the effects of advanced carbohydrate counting on glycaemic control (HbA(1c)), psychosocial measures, weight and hypoglycaemic events in patients of all age groups with type 1 diabetes on a basal-bolus insulin regimen. Methods An electronic search of Scopus, MEDLINE and The Cochrane Library conducted in January 2013 identified 27 relevant articles. Six were randomized controlled trials and 21 were observational studies. Large heterogeneity existed across studies with regard to study design and patient populations. Reporting of statistical measures was insufficient to serve as a basis for a meta-analysis. Results Overall, the studies demonstrated a positive trend in change in HbA(1c) after introduction of advanced carbohydrate counting. Reductions in HbA(1c) ranged from 0.0 to 13 mmol/mol (0.0-1.2%). Most psychosocial measures improved; however, only few improvements were considered clinically relevant. Both weight gain and reduction were registered, but most studies found no significant weight changes. The majority of studies assessing the incidence of hypoglycaemic events found a significant reduction in the event rate and none reported an increase in the incidence. Conclusions In summary, the currently available literatu…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/dme.12446

Cites

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 46 · Cited by 94

Authors
Schmidt, S., Schelde, B., & Nørgaard, K.
Affiliations
  • Hvidovre Hospital (DK)
  • Aarhus University Hospital (DK)
Corresponding author
Schmidt, S.
Venue
Diabetic Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-07-15
Volume
31
Issue
8
Pages
886-896
ISSN
  • 0742-3071 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-5491
OpenAlex
W2048435449
Cited by
94
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 2
FWCI
1.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diabetic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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, multiple daily insulin injections, glycemic control, HbA1c, hypoglycemia, weight change, psychosocial outcomes, insulin dose
MeSH terms
Combined Modality Therapy, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hyperglycemia, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Patient Education as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine, Diet, Carbohydrate-Restricted, Observational Studies as Topic

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