Cutaneous Adverse Effects From Diabetes Devices in Pediatric Patients With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusions (CSIIs) are the current standard treatment devices for type 1 diabetes (T1D) management. With a high prevalence of T1D beginning in pediatrics and carrying into adulthood, insufficient glycemic control leads to poor patient outcomes. Dermatologic complications such as contact dermatitis, lipodystrophies, and inflammatory lesions are among those associated with CGM and CSII, which reduce glycemic control and patient compliance. Objective: This systematic review aims to explore the current literature surrounding dermatologic complications of CGM and CSII as well as the impact on patient outcomes. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was carried out using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines using 5 online databases. Included articles were those containing primary data relevant to human participants and adverse reactions to CGM and CSII devices in pediatric populations, of which greater than 50% of the sample size were aged 0-21 years. Qualitative analysis was chosen due to the heterogeneity of outcomes. Results: Following the application of exclusion criteria, 25 studies were analyzed and discussed. An additional 5 studies were identified after the initial search and inclusion. The most common complication covered is contact dermatitis, with 13 identified studies. Further, 7 studies concerned lipodystrophies, 5 covered nonspecific cutaneous changes, 3 covered unique cutaneous findings such as granulomatous reactions and panniculitis, and 2 discussed user acceptability. Conclusions: The dermatologic complications of CGM and CSII pose a potential risk to long-term glycemic control in T1D, especially in young patients where skin lesions can lead to discontinuation. Increased manufacturer transparency is critical and further studies are needed to expand upon the current preventative measures such as device site rotation and steroid creams, which lack consistent effectiveness.
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 | 0.004 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".