MillerKM, FosterNC, BeckRW, et al.Current state of type 1 diabetes treatment in the U.S.: updated data from the T1D Exchange clinic registry. Diabetes Care, 2015; 38: 971–978.
4.
FosterNC, BeckRW, MillrtKM, et al.State of type 1 diabetes management and outcomes from the T1D exchange in 2016-2018. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2019; 21: 66–72.
5.
BurckhardtMA, SmithGJ, CooperMN, JonesTW, DavisEA. Real-world outcomes of insulin pump compared to injection therapy in a population-based sample of children with type 1 diabetes. Pediatr Diabetes, 2018; 19: 1459–1466.
6.
BattelinoT, DanneT, BergenstalR, et al.Clinical targets for continuous glucose monitoring data interpretation: recommendations from the international consensus on time in range. Diabetes Care, 2019; 42: 1593–1603.
7.
SandigD, GrimsmannJ, ReinauerC, et al.Continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes: real-world data from the German/Austrian prospective diabetes follow-up registry. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2020; 22: 602–612.
8.
CherubiniV, BonfantiR, CasertanoA, et al.Time in range in children with type 1 diabetes using treatment strategies based on nonautomated insulin delivery systems in the real world. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2020. DOI: 10.1089/dia.2020.0031 [Epub ahead of print].
9.
CharleerS, De BlockC, van HaffelL, et al.Quality of life and glucose control after 1 year of nationwide reimbursement of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults living with type 1 diabetes (FUTURE): a prospective observational real-world cohort study. Diabetes Care, 2020; 43: 389–397.
10.
MerzonE, GrosmanJ, VinkerS, et al.Factors associated with withdrawal from insulin pump therapy: a large-population-based study. Diabetes Metab Res Rev, 2020; 36: e3288.
11.
LalRA, BasinaM, MaahsDM, et al.One year clinical experience of the first commercial hybrid closed-loop. Diabetes Care, 2019; 42: 2190–2196.
12.
MesserLH, BergetC, VigersT, et al.Real world hybrid closed-loop discontinuation: Predictors and perceptions of youth discontinuing the 670G system in the first 6 months. Pediatr Diabetes, 2020; 21: 319–327.
13.
BergetC, MesserLH, VigersT, et al.Six months of hybrid closed loop in the real-world: an evaluation of children and young adults using the 670G system. Pediatr Diabetes, 2020; 21: 310–318.
14.
WongJJ, BarleyCC, HanesS, et al.Parental perspectives: identifying profiles of parental attitudes and barriers related to diabetes device use. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2020 DOI: 10.1089/dia.2019.0492 [Epub ahead of print].
15.
TanenbaumML, HanesSJ, MillerKM, et al.Diabetes device use in adults with type 1 diabetes: barriers to uptake and potential intervention targets. Diabetes Care, 2017; 40: 181–187.
16.
HilliardME, LevyW, AndersonBJ, et al.Benefits and barriers of continuous glucose monitoring in young children with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2019; 21: 493–498.
17.
MesserLH, TanenbaumML, CookPF, et al.Cost, hassle, and on-body experience: barriers to diabetes device use in adolescents and potential intervention targets. Diabetes Technol Ther, 2020; 22: DOI: 10.1089/dia.2019.0509 [Epub ahead of print].
18.
CrossenS, XingG, HochJS. Changing costs of type 1 diabetes care among US children and adolescents. Pediatr Diabetes, 2020; 21: 644–648.
19.
LeeJM, SundaramV, SandersL, ChamberlainL, WiseP. Health care utilization and costs of publicly-insured children with diabetes in California. J Pediatr, 2015; 167: 449–454.e446.
20.
WeissD, SundER, FreeseJ, KrokstadS.The diffusion of innovative diabetes technologies as a fundamental cause of social inequalities in health. The Nord-Trøndelag Health Study, Norway. Sociol Health Illn, 2020 DOI: 10.1111/1467-9566.13147[Epub ahead of print].
21.
FarringtonC, MurphyHR, HovorkaR. A qualitative study of clinician attitudes towards closed-loop systems in mainstream diabetes care in England. Diabet Med, 2020; 37: 1023–1029.
