Evidence Intelligence™
- EvidenceScore™
- Emerging
- Score 59 · Based on 1 study
- ImpactScore™
- 50
- Neutral
- ConsistencyScore™
- unclear
- Not enough independent studies
Estudios de apoyo: Basado en 1 estudio
Add to Evidence TrackerResumen de Investigación
Analyzed using Evidence Intelligence™
Meal anticipation does not improve glycemic control in T1D
Última actualización 24 de agosto de 2026
Key finding
TBR was reduced in FCL+ (median 0% [0-0%] vs. 0% [0-0.8%]; P = 0.03).
This study evaluated the glycemic impact of meal anticipation in automated insulin delivery systems for adults with Type 1 Diabetes, finding no significant differences in time in range between systems.
Quick read
Study at a glance
The essential study design details in one scan.
EvidenceScore™
Moderate
Study type
RCTs
Follow-up
Short-Term (≤3 mo)
Risk of bias
Some Concerns
Guarda investigacion, organiza estudios y vuelve a encontrar evidencia importante rapidamente.
Plain-language summary
What this paper says
A plain-language read of the study’s main message and where it applies.
Study focus
This study evaluated the glycemic impact of meal anticipation in automated insulin delivery systems for adults with Type 1 Diabetes, finding no significant differences in time in range between systems.
Clinical relevance
Understanding the effectiveness of meal anticipation in insulin delivery systems is crucial for optimizing diabetes management. This study's findings suggest that while automated systems are beneficial, simply adding meal anticipation may not enhance glycemic control, guiding future research and clinical practices.
Keep in mind
The study's sample size and demographic characteristics may limit generalizability. Potential confounding factors were not fully controlled. Results may not apply to younger populations or those with different diabetes management strategies.
Published in
Referencia de la Revista
Publication details and source links for this paper.
Jose G, Patricio C, Orianne V, et al. Glycemic Impact of Meal Anticipation in Automated Insulin Delivery Systems in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2023;46(9):1652-1658. doi:10.2337/dc23-0119
Efectos Principales
No significant difference in TIR after breakfast between FCL+ and FCL (P = 0.62).
TBR after dinner was reduced in FCL+ compared to FCL (P = 0.03).
Overall 24-h control was highest in HCL (86 ± 10%) compared to FCL and FCL+ (77 ± 11% and 77 ± 12%, respectively).
Evidence network
How this study fits
Understand where this research contributes within the broader evidence network.
Evidence Context
This study contributes evidence to Full Closed Loop (FCL), Full Closed Loop with Meal Anticipation (FCL+), Hybrid closed-loop system and Time in range, Time below range.
This study contributes evidence to
Primary intervention
Full Closed Loop (FCL)
Primary outcomes
- Time in range
- Time below range
Primary intervention
Primary outcomes
Evidence relationships
Intervention and outcome relationships this study adds to the evidence network.
4
Evidence pairs
4
Relationships
4
Evidence topics
contributes_evidence
Editorial context
Why this study matters
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.
Moderate contributionModerate confidenceNetwork score: 68
4
Related topics
4
Evidence pairs
789
Related studies
High relevance in at least one topic
Why it is useful
- Contributes to 4 evidence relationships
- Includes primary outcome data
- Linked to 4 direct semantic evidence topics
Topic contributions
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Agrega evidencia relacionada a tu Evidence Tracker
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
Insulin Delivery Systems and CGM Time in Range
Evidencia relacionada
Tema de evidencia
Diabetes Technology
Guardar evidencia
Tema de evidencia
Hypoglycemia
Guardar evidencia
Core evidence
Study findings
The primary outcomes reported in this study.
Time below range
Full Closed Loop with Meal Anticipation (FCL+) → Time below range
Full Closed Loop with Meal Anticipation (FCL+) → Time below range
Evidence Intelligence™
- EvidenceScore™
- Emerging
- Score 59 · Based on 1 study
- ImpactScore™
- 25
- Negative
- ConsistencyScore™
- unclear
- Not enough independent studies
Estudios de apoyo: Basado en 1 estudio
Add to Evidence TrackerTime in range
Full Closed Loop with Meal Anticipation (FCL+) → Time in range
Full Closed Loop with Meal Anticipation (FCL+) → Time in range
Evidence Intelligence™
- EvidenceScore™
- Emerging
- Score 59 · Based on 1 study
- ImpactScore™
- 50
- Neutral
- ConsistencyScore™
- unclear
- Not enough independent studies
Estudios de apoyo: Basado en 1 estudio
Add to Evidence TrackerEvidence Intelligence™
- EvidenceScore™
- 88
- Strong
- ImpactScore™
- 79
- Positive
- ConsistencyScore™
- 69
- generally_consistent
Estudios de apoyo: Basado en 17 estudios
Add to Evidence TrackerEvidence Library
Build your evidence library
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
La Evidencia Sugiere
- FCL+ showed a significant reduction in TBR after dinner (P = 0.03).
- Overall 24-h control was better in HCL compared to FCL and FCL+.
- No significant differences in TIR after breakfast between FCL+ and FCL.
A quién se aplica
- Adults with Type 1 Diabetes.
- Individuals using automated insulin delivery systems.
Tener en Cuenta
- The findings may not be applicable to populations outside the study's demographic.
- The effectiveness of meal anticipation in other contexts remains uncertain.
- Further research is needed to explore long-term impacts of these systems.
Entre Líneas
- The study's sample size and demographic characteristics may limit generalizability.
- Potential confounding factors were not fully controlled.
- Results may not apply to younger populations or those with different diabetes management strategies.
Evidence Library
Build your evidence library
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
Connected Evidence
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.
Relaciones de evidencia relacionadas
Explore in Evidence ExplorerThis study contributes to the evidence on the following intervention-outcome relationships.
Devices & Technology
Insulin Delivery Systems → CGM Time in Range
Devices & Technology
Evidence Intelligence™
- EvidenceScore™
- 88
- Strong
- ImpactScore™
- 79
- Positive
- ConsistencyScore™
- 69
- generally_consistent
Estudios de apoyo: Basado en 17 estudios
View evidenceDevices & Technology
Insulin Delivery Systems → CGM Time in Range
Devices & Technology
Evidence Intelligence™
- EvidenceScore™
- Moderate
- Score 69 · Based on 2 studies
- ImpactScore™
- 75
- Positive
- ConsistencyScore™
- 35
- mixed
Estudios de apoyo: Basado en 2 estudios
View evidenceIncluido en estas colecciones de evidencia
Curated evidence collections and hubs this study is part of.
Explora más en Evidence Explorer
Jump to pre-filtered views in Evidence Explorer.
All studies on Hybrid closed-loop system and Time in range
Intervention: Hybrid closed-loop systemOutcome: Time in range
17 results
All studies on Hybrid closed-loop system and Time below range
Intervention: Hybrid closed-loop systemOutcome: Time below range
2 results
All studies on Hybrid closed-loop system
Intervention: Hybrid closed-loop system
17 results
All studies measuring Time in range
Outcome: Time in range
17 results
All studies measuring Time below range
Outcome: Time below range
2 results
Questions answered by this study
Generated from the study's connected evidence using Evidence Intelligence™.
Does Insulin Delivery Systems improve cgm time in range?
Strong Evidence
Insulin Delivery Systems may improve CGM Time in Range.
ConsistencyScore™: Results are mixed and should be interpreted cautiously.
Evidence caveat: The available evidence reports mixed findings.
Ranked evidence signals
- 1
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
- Population details are unavailable.
Does Full Closed Loop (FCL) improve time in range?
Emerging Evidence
Current evidence does not show a clear benefit of Full Closed Loop (FCL) for Time in range.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
- 1
Time in range
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | neutral | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
- Only one supporting study is available.
- Consistency cannot yet be determined.
- Population details are unavailable.
Does Full Closed Loop with Meal Anticipation (FCL+) improve time in range?
Emerging Evidence
Current evidence does not show a clear benefit of Full Closed Loop with Meal Anticipation (FCL+) for Time in range.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
- 1
Time in range
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | neutral | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
- Only one supporting study is available.
- Consistency cannot yet be determined.
- Population details are unavailable.
Does Full Closed Loop with Meal Anticipation (FCL+) improve time below range?
Emerging Evidence
Full Closed Loop with Meal Anticipation (FCL+) may worsen Time below range or be associated with harm.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
- 1
Time below range
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | moderate negative | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
- Only one supporting study is available.
- Consistency cannot yet be determined.
- Population details are unavailable.
Next steps
Continue your research
Choose a next path through related evidence topics, Evidence Explorer views, and research summaries.
Evidence topics
Follow the topics this study contributes to.
Explore in Evidence Explorer
Open broader Evidence Explorer views for this relationship.
Related research
Read related research summaries.
Closed-loop therapy may improve sleep quality in young people with T1DArtificial pancreas may improve glucose control in type 1 diabetesAutomated insulin-glucagon delivery reduces hypoglycemia riskClosed-loop therapy enhances glycemic control in type 2 diabetes.AHCL therapy improves glucose levels but increases diabetes distress in youth
Sin anuncios. Sin rastreo.
Centrada en la evidencia, no en la publicidad.
Segura y privada
Tus datos siempre están protegidos.
Siempre al día
Se agregan nuevos estudios todos los días.