Cited by 3Diabetes Management and ResearchGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementDiabetes Management and Education

Glycemic variability in pregnant individuals using assisted hybrid closed-loop therapy versus sensor-augmented pump therapy

Open access
King, Jocelynn, Buschur, Elizabeth, Snell-Bergeon, Janet, Pyle, Laura, Dungan, Kathleen, Garcetti, Rachel, Nease, Emily, Bartholomew, Anna +2 more·2024·Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology

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 · 10.1177/19322968241260050

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • In that pilot RCT, there were no statistically significant differences in glycemic risk or glycemic variability between hybrid closed-loop and SAP groups at any point during pregnancy or postpartum.

    “There were no statistically significant differences in measures of glycemic risk or in measures of glycemic variability between the hybrid closed-loop and the SAP groups at any point during pregnancy or postpartum (238).”

    From 7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2025 (2025) · cites this paper as [238]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
King, J., Buschur, E., Snell-Bergeon, J., Pyle, L., Dungan, K., Garcetti, R., Nease, E., Bartholomew, A., Johnson, C., & Polsky, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Denver (US)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • Barbara Davis Center for Diabetes, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA
  • Colorado School of Public Health (US)
  • University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
Corresponding author
Polsky, Sarit
Venue
Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology
Published
2024-06-17
Volume
18
Issue
5
Pages
1260-1262
ISSN
1932-2968 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4399788388
Cited by
3
References
6
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1
FWCI
0.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute
  • NIH/NCATS Colorado CTSA (UL1 TR002535)
  • Medtronic MiniMed, Inc.
  • Children’s Diabetes Foundation
  • JDRF
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
Keywords
glycemic variability, pregnancy, sensor-augmented pump therapy, continuous glucose monitoring, insulin pump therapy, diabetes in pregnancy
MeSH terms
Glycemic Control, Adult, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Female, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Insulin Infusion Systems, Pregnancy, Pregnancy in Diabetics, Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring

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