| Title |
Closed-loop for type 1 diabetes – an introduction and appraisal for the generalist
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-017-0794-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lia Bally, Hood Thabit, Roman Hovorka |
| Abstract |
Rapid progress over the past decade has been made with the development of the 'Artificial Pancreas', also known as the closed-loop system, which emulates the feedback glucose-responsive functionality of the pancreatic beta cell. The recent FDA approval of the first hybrid closed-loop system makes the Artificial Pancreas a realistic therapeutic option for people with type 1 diabetes. In anticipation of its advent into clinical care, we provide a primer and appraisal of this novel therapeutic approach in type 1 diabetes for healthcare professionals and non-specialists in the field. Randomised clinical studies in outpatient and home settings have shown improved glycaemic outcomes, reduced risk of hypoglycaemia and positive user attitudes. User input and interaction with existing closed-loop systems, however, are still required. Therefore, management of user expectations, as well as training and support by healthcare providers are key to ensure optimal uptake, satisfaction and acceptance of the technology. An overview of closed-loop technology and its clinical implications are discussed, complemented by our extensive hands-on experience with closed-loop system use during free daily living. The introduction of the artificial pancreas into clinical practice represents a milestone towards the goal of improving the care of people with type 1 diabetes. There remains a need to understand the impact of user interaction with the technology, and its implication on current diabetes management and care. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 50% |
| Ireland | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 97 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 9% |
| Other | 9 | 9% |
| Other | 15 | 15% |
| Unknown | 28 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 10% |
| Engineering | 6 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 15 | 15% |
| Unknown | 31 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 June 2021.
All research outputs
#6,350,438
of 25,619,480 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,558
of 4,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,603
of 424,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#44
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,619,480 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,060 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.9. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 424,065 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.