↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating optimal utilisation of technology in type 1 diabetes mellitus from a clinical and health economic perspective: protocol for a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 blog


6 Dimensions

Readers on

79 Mendeley
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Evaluating optimal utilisation of technology in type 1 diabetes mellitus from a clinical and health economic perspective: protocol for a systematic review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0706-9
Pubmed ID

Anthony Pease, Clement Lo, Arul Earnest, Danny Liew, Sophia Zoungas


Technology has been implemented since the 1970s with the hope of improving glycaemic control and reducing the burden of complications for those living with type 1 diabetes. A clinical and cost-effectiveness comparison of all available technologies including continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), continuous glucose monitors (CGMs), sensor-augmented pump therapy (including either low-glucose suspend or predictive low-glucose suspend), hybrid closed-loop systems, closed-loop (single-hormone or dual-hormone) systems, flash glucose monitoring (FGM), insulin bolus calculators, and 'smart-device' applications is currently lacking. This systematic review, network meta-analysis, and narrative synthesis aims to summarise available evidence regarding the clinical and cost-effectiveness of available technologies in the management of patients with type 1 diabetes. Relevant studies will be searched using a comprehensive strategy through MEDLINE, MEDLINE in-process and other non-indexed citations, EMBASE, PubMed, all evidenced-based medicine reviews, EconLit, Cost-effectiveness Analysis Registry, Research Papers in Economics, Web of Science, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and PROSPERO for randomised controlled trials and economic evaluations. The search strategy will assess if there are combinations of currently available technologies that are superior to each other or to insulin injections and capillary blood glucose testing with regard to glycaemic control, morbidity/mortality, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Two reviewers will screen all articles for eligibility and then independently evaluate risk of bias, complete quality assessment, and extract data for included studies. Network meta-analyses will be performed where there is sufficient homogenous clinical data. Narrative synthesis will be performed for heterogeneous clinical data that cannot be pooled for network meta-analysis with critical appraisal of economic evaluations. This systematic review protocol utilises rigorous methodology and pre-determined eligibility criteria to provide a uniquely comprehensive search for a broad spectrum of clinical and economic outcomes in comparing multiple currently available technologies for managing type 1 diabetes. Evidence on which technologies may be most appropriate for particular patient groups will be examined as well as the economic justification for funding of different technologies. PROSPERO ( CRD42017077221 ).

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Other 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 26 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 8%
Engineering 4 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 4%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 28 35%

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 20 March 2018.
All research outputs
of 12,680,099 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
of 1,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 274,285 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,680,099 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,048 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 274,285 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.