Closed-loop insulin delivery for glycaemic control in hospitalised and perioperative adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
- Journal
- Diabetes research and clinical practice (Q1)
- Published
- 25 August 2026
- Study design
- Systematic review / meta-analysis of RCTs
- Evidence level
- Level 1, High (CEBM 1a)
- Authors
- Jinzhi Zhong, Chan Zhao, Xu Shuai, Hebin Wang, Rui Qi, Shenjiao Yang, et al.
- PMID
- 42641801
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.diabres.2026.113519
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Internal Medicine (top studies of the week, 30 August 2026): Closed‑loop insulin improves glycaemic control in hospital
Abstract
We evaluated whether closed-loop insulin delivery improves glycaemic control in hospitalised and perioperative adults. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to 29 June 2026 for randomised controlled trials comparing closed-loop or automated insulin delivery with usual care or conventional insulin therapy. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted; risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 and certainty of evidence using GRADE. Seven trials involving 375 analysed participants were included. Closed-loop insulin delivery increased time in target glucose range by 23.91 percentage points (95% CI 19.40 to 28.43; I2 = 0%) and reduced mean glucose by 1.79 mmol/L (95% CI 1.06 to 2.53 lower; I2 = 36.3%); certainty was moderate for both outcomes. Two trials involving 69 participants reported compatible participant-level data for clinically significant hyperglycaemia, and both estimates favoured closed-loop insulin delivery, although the evidence was exploratory and imprecise. No severe hypoglycaemic events occurred in either group, precluding reliable estimation of comparative safety. Closed-loop insulin delivery may improve glycaemic process measures, but larger pragmatic trials are needed to establish clinical benefits, safety, and implementation feasibility.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.