Última actualización 23 de agosto de 2026
Key finding
Time in range improved from 60% at the end of usual care to 73% at the end of AID (p < 0.001).
This study compared automated insulin delivery (AID) with usual care in individuals with diabetes and advanced chronic kidney disease, finding significant improvements in glucose control.
Quick read
The essential study design details in one scan.
EvidenceScore™
Moderate
Study type
RCTs
Follow-up
Medium-Term (3–12 mo)
Risk of bias
Some Concerns
Guarda investigacion, organiza estudios y vuelve a encontrar evidencia importante rapidamente.
Plain-language summary
A plain-language read of the study’s main message and where it applies.
Study focus
This study compared automated insulin delivery (AID) with usual care in individuals with diabetes and advanced chronic kidney disease, finding significant improvements in glucose control.
Improving glucose control is crucial for individuals with diabetes and chronic kidney disease, as it can reduce the risk of complications. The significant increase in time spent in the target glucose range with AID suggests that this technology may offer a valuable alternative to traditional management methods.
The study's sample size may limit generalizability. Participants were only from one clinical setting. The long-term effects of AID were not assessed.
Published in
Publication details and source links for this paper.
Jean CL, Christine LM, Bella H, et al. Automated insulin delivery compared with usual care in people with diabetes and advanced chronic kidney disease: a randomized crossover trial. Diabetologia. 2026;69(8):2168-2181. doi:10.1007/s00125-026-06732-3
AID improved percentage time in range from 60% to 73% (p < 0.001).
Hypoglycemia rates were unchanged during the study.
25% of participants experienced hospital admissions unrelated to device use.
Evidence network
Understand where this research contributes within the broader evidence network.
This study contributes evidence to Continuous glucose monitoring, Hybrid closed-loop system and Hospitalization rate, Hypoglycemia symptom score, Time in range.
This study contributes evidence to
Primary intervention
Continuous glucose monitoring
Primary outcomes
Evidence topics
Primary intervention
Primary outcomes
Intervention and outcome relationships this study adds to the evidence network.
Editorial context
See why this paper is useful beyond its individual results.
Evidence network role
This section describes how the study fits into the current evidence network. It does not determine whether an intervention works on its own.
3
Related topics
6
Evidence pairs
682
Related studies
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Guarda estudios y paginas de evidencia, organiza tu Evidence Tracker y manten en un solo lugar la investigacion que te importa.
Evidencia principal
Relación de evidencia
Evidencia relacionada
Tema de evidencia
Guardar evidencia
Tema de evidencia
Guardar evidencia
Core evidence
The primary outcomes reported in this study.
Continuous glucose monitoring → Hospitalization rate
Continuous glucose monitoring → Hospitalization rate
Continuous glucose monitoring → Hypoglycemia symptom score
Continuous glucose monitoring → Hypoglycemia symptom score
Continuous glucose monitoring → Time in range
Continuous glucose monitoring → Time in range
Hybrid closed-loop system → Hospitalization rate
Hybrid closed-loop system → Hospitalization rate
Hybrid closed-loop system → Hypoglycemia symptom score
Hybrid closed-loop system → Hypoglycemia symptom score
Evidence Library
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
Evidence Library
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
Explore related studies, evidence collections, and research questions.
Relationships organized using the Dediabetes Evidence Intelligence™ framework.
This study contributes to evidence on Insulin Delivery Systems and CGM Time in Range, Insulin Delivery Systems and CGM Time in Range.
This study contributes to the evidence on the following intervention-outcome relationships.
Devices & Technology
Devices & Technology
Curated evidence collections and hubs this study is part of.
All studies measuring CGM Time in Range
Measures CGM Time in Range as a key outcome.
All studies on Insulin Delivery Systems
Contributes to Insulin Delivery Systems evidence base.
Latest published studies
Published within the last 2 years.
Jump to pre-filtered views in Evidence Explorer.
17 results
8 results
17 results
8 results
17 results
Generated from the study's connected evidence using Evidence Intelligence™.
Insulin Delivery Systems may improve CGM Time in Range.
ConsistencyScore™: Results are mixed and should be interpreted cautiously.
Ranked evidence signals
Time in range
EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 87.9 | moderate positive | ConsistencyScore™ Generally Consistent | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is cautious because the available studies report mixed findings.
Limitations
Current evidence does not show a clear benefit of Continuous glucose monitoring for Hospitalization rate.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Hospitalization rate
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | neutral | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
Current evidence does not show a clear benefit of Continuous glucose monitoring for Hypoglycemia symptom score.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Hypoglycemia symptom score
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | neutral | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
Current evidence does not show a clear benefit of Hybrid closed-loop system for Hospitalization rate.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Hospitalization rate
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | neutral | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
Next steps
Choose a next path through related evidence topics, Evidence Explorer views, and research summaries.
Follow the topics this study contributes to.
Open broader Evidence Explorer views for this relationship.
Read related research summaries.
Centrada en la evidencia, no en la publicidad.
Tus datos siempre están protegidos.
Se agregan nuevos estudios todos los días.
