Last updated July 11, 2026
Key finding
Mean difference was 15.0 percentage points (interquartile range 8.0–22.0; P < 0.001).
This study compared closed-loop therapy with CSII + CGM in individuals with type 2 diabetes, finding that closed-loop therapy significantly improved glycemic 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
Save this study and add notes to your research library.
Plain-language summary
A plain-language read of the study's main message and where it applies.
Study focus
This study compared closed-loop therapy with CSII + CGM in individuals with type 2 diabetes, finding that closed-loop therapy significantly improved glycemic control.
Improving glycemic control is crucial for individuals with type 2 diabetes, as it can reduce the risk of complications associated with the disease. This study suggests that closed-loop therapy may offer a more effective management strategy, potentially leading to better long-term health outcomes for patients.
The study's sample size and demographic diversity may limit generalizability. Effectiveness of closed-loop therapy was not fully established due to unclear evidence ratings. Potential confounding factors were not fully controlled in the study design.
Published in
Publication details and source links for this paper.
Anne-Laure B, Sandrine L, Christine W, et al. Closed-loop therapy improved glycemic control more than did CSII + CGM in people with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2024;47(10):1778-1786. doi:10.2337/dc24-0623
Closed-loop therapy increased percentage time in range (TIR) to 76.0% compared to 61.0% for CSII + CGM.
Mean sensor glucose decreased by 13.2 mg/dL during closed-loop therapy.
Time above range (TAR) decreased to 24.0% during closed-loop therapy versus 38.0% during CSII + CGM.
Evidence network
Understand where this research contributes within the broader evidence network.
This study contributes evidence to Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion, Hybrid closed-loop system and Time in range, Glucose variability, Mean sensor glucose, and 3 more.
This study contributes evidence to
Primary intervention
Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion
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.
2
Related topics
7
Evidence pairs
202
Related studies
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Follow the evidence behind this paper in your workspace.
Primary evidence
Evidence relationship
Related evidence
Evidence relationship
Follow evidence
Evidence relationship
Follow evidence
Core evidence
The primary outcomes reported in this study.
Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion → Time in range
Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion → Time in range
Hybrid closed-loop system → Glucose variability
Hybrid closed-loop system → Glucose variability
Hybrid closed-loop system → Mean sensor glucose
Hybrid closed-loop system → Mean sensor glucose
Hybrid closed-loop system → Sleep fragmentation index
Hybrid closed-loop system → Sleep fragmentation index
Hybrid closed-loop system → Time above range
Hybrid closed-loop system → Time above range
Hybrid closed-loop system → Total daily insulin dose
Hybrid closed-loop system → Total daily insulin dose
Create a free account to access effectiveness ratings, evidence strength and depth scores, consistency analysis, and direct links to all supporting studies.
Create a free account to unlock the bias score, detailed effectiveness analysis, and clinical outcomes for this study.
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 Glucose Variability, 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 measuring Glucose Variability
Measures Glucose Variability 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 the evidence archive.
4 results
4 results
4 results
4 results
4 results
Generated from the study's connected evidence using Evidence Intelligence™.
Insulin Delivery Systems may improve CGM Time in Range.
ConsistencyScore™: Results are generally consistent across studies.
Ranked evidence signals
Time in range
EvidenceScore™ Moderate | EvidenceScore™ 69.4 | strong positive | ConsistencyScore™ Consistent | 1 study
Time above range
EvidenceScore™ Moderate | EvidenceScore™ 65.3 | strong positive | ConsistencyScore™ Consistent | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on 8 supporting studies with generally consistent results and a positive effect signal.
Limitations
Insulin Delivery Systems may improve Glucose Variability.
ConsistencyScore™: Results are generally consistent across studies.
Ranked evidence signals
Glucose variability
EvidenceScore™ Moderate | EvidenceScore™ 69.4 | moderate positive | ConsistencyScore™ Consistent | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on 6 supporting studies with generally consistent results and a positive effect signal.
Limitations
Current evidence does not show a clear benefit of Insulin Delivery Systems for Insulin Resistance.
ConsistencyScore™: Results are mixed and should be interpreted cautiously.
Ranked evidence signals
Total daily insulin dose
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | neutral | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is cautious because the available studies report mixed findings.
Limitations
Hybrid closed-loop system appears to improve Mean sensor glucose.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Mean sensor glucose
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | strong positive | 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, archive views, and research summaries.
Follow the topics this study contributes to.
Open broader archive views for this relationship.
Read related research summaries.
Focused on evidence, not advertising.
Your data is always protected.
New studies added every day.
