Insulin Pump Therapy and Adverse Skin Reactions With Focus on Allergic Contact Dermatitis in Individuals Living With Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Clinical-Based Update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of insulin pumps (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII]) in individuals living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) improves disease control. However, adverse skin reactions may hamper compliance. We aimed to assess the relationship of insulin pumps, particularly that of infusion set therapy, used in children and adults with T1D and dermatitis including allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, and EMBASE, of full-text studies reporting dermatitis in persons with diabetes using a CSII was conducted from 2020 to 2023. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality. The inventory performed at the Department of Occupational and Environmental Dermatology, Malmö, Sweden (YMDA) was also performed highlighting the diagnostic process. RESULTS: Among the 391 screened abstracts, 21 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Seven studies included data on children only, four studies were on adults, and nine studies reported data on both children and adults. Participants were exposed to a broad range of pumps. Dermatitis was rarely specified. Up to 60% of those referred to a university hospital due to skin reactions possibly related to insulin pumps had an ACD. CONCLUSIONS: The review and our findings indicate that there is not sufficient focus on contact allergy in the primary toxicological evaluations of substances used also for insulin pump therapy products and that possible adverse skin reactions are not correctly followed up in the clinical setting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".