Last updated July 12, 2026
Key finding
TIR during the trial was 4.2h/day higher in the intervention compared with the control group (mean difference 17.5% [95% CI 14.0%, 21.1%]; P < 0.0001)
This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of the Tubeless Omnipod 5 automated insulin delivery system compared to traditional pump therapy with continuous glucose monitoring in adults with Type 1 diabetes.
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 research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
Plain-language summary
A plain-language read of the study’s main message and where it applies.
Study focus
This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of the Tubeless Omnipod 5 automated insulin delivery system compared to traditional pump therapy with continuous glucose monitoring in adults with Type 1 diabetes.
These findings are significant for clinicians and patients as they suggest that the Tubeless Omnipod 5 may offer a more effective and safer option for managing blood glucose levels in adults with Type 1 diabetes, potentially leading to better long-term health outcomes.
The study's sample size may limit the generalizability of the findings. The trial duration may not capture long-term effects of the interventions. Participants were selected based on specific criteria, which may not represent the broader population.
Published in
Publication details and source links for this paper.
Eric R, Ruth SW, Grazia A, et al. Efficacy and Safety of the Tubeless Omnipod 5 Automated Insulin Delivery System Compared with Pump Therapy with Continuous Glucose Monitor in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2024;47(12):2248-2257. doi:10.2337/dc24-1550
The intervention group had 4.2 hours/day more time in range (TIR 70-180 mg/dL) compared to the control group.
The intervention group showed a greater reduction in HbA1c by 1.24% from baseline.
The intervention group experienced significantly lower time <70 mg/dL and >180 mg/dL by 0.57% and 16.8%, respectively.
No diabetes-related ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia events occurred in the intervention group.
Evidence network
Understand where this research contributes within the broader evidence network.
This study contributes evidence to Hybrid closed-loop system and Diabetic ketoacidosis, HbA1c, Hypoglycemia events, and 3 more.
This study contributes evidence to
Primary intervention
Hybrid closed-loop system
Primary outcomes
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.
4
Related topics
6
Evidence pairs
578
Related studies
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Save studies and evidence pages, organize your personal Evidence Tracker, and keep the research you care about in one place.
Primary evidence
Evidence relationship
Related evidence
Evidence relationship
Save evidence
Evidence relationship
Save evidence
Core evidence
The primary outcomes reported in this study.
Hybrid closed-loop system → Diabetic ketoacidosis
Hybrid closed-loop system → Diabetic ketoacidosis
Hybrid closed-loop system → Hypoglycemia events
Hybrid closed-loop system → Hypoglycemia events
Hybrid closed-loop system → Percentage of time spent above 180 mg/dL
Hybrid closed-loop system → Percentage of time spent above 180 mg/dL
Hybrid closed-loop system → Percentage of time spent below 70 mg/dL
Hybrid closed-loop system → Percentage of time spent below 70 mg/dL
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 HbA1c.
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.
All studies measuring HbA1c
Measures HbA1c as a key outcome.
Latest published studies
Published within the last 2 years.
Jump to pre-filtered views in Evidence Explorer.
8 results
5 results
8 results
8 results
5 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™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 81.0 | strong positive | ConsistencyScore™ Consistent | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on 17 supporting studies with generally consistent results and a positive effect signal.
Limitations
Insulin Delivery Systems appears to improve HbA1c.
ConsistencyScore™: Results are consistent across studies.
Ranked evidence signals
HbA1c
EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 80.2 | strong positive | ConsistencyScore™ Consistent | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on 13 supporting studies with consistent results and a positive effect signal.
Limitations
Insulin Delivery Systems may improve Hypoglycemia.
ConsistencyScore™: Results are mixed and should be interpreted cautiously.
Ranked evidence signals
Hypoglycemia events
EvidenceScore™ Moderate | EvidenceScore™ 74.6 | weak positive | ConsistencyScore™ Generally Consistent | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is cautious because the available studies report mixed findings.
Limitations
Hybrid closed-loop system appears to improve Percentage of time spent above 180 mg/dL.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Percentage of time spent above 180 mg/dL
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, 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.
Focused on evidence, not advertising.
Your data is always protected.
New studies added every day.
