Effects of advanced carbohydrate counting in patients with Type 1 diabetes: a systematic review
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Randomized controlled trials in adults with type 1 diabetes have shown that carbohydrate counting can improve glycemic control, quality of life, and general well-being without increases in severe hypoglycemic events, body weight, or blood lipids.
“carbohydrate counting can improve glycemic control, quality of life, and general well-being”
From ESPEN guideline on hospital nutrition (2021) · cites this paper as [171]
Carbohydrate counting and insulin:carbohydrate ratios can be a useful method for adjusting mealtime insulin dosing for optimal glycemic outcomes.
“Carbohydrate counting and insulin:carbohydrate ratios can be a useful method for adjusting mealtime insulin dosing for optimal glycemic outcomes (132,133).”
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