A Retrospective Real-Life Study to Compare Glycemic Control Between Simplified Meal Size Estimation and Precise Carbohydrates Counting in Type 1 Diabetes Patients Using DBLG1 Hybrid Closed-Loop System
Authors' conclusion
The semi-quantitative CHO declaration achieves similar glycemic results as CHO counting in this retrospective study.
Study context
- Population
- T1D patients using DBLG1 HCL system in Europe, 7 Western European countries; mean HbA1c 7.6% ± 1.2%, mean age 43.9 ± 14.7 years1,959 patients
- Participants
- 327,819 vs 287,000
- Exposure
- Qualitative meal size estimation (QMSE) vs precise carbohydrates counting (PCC)
- QMSEn = 327,819
- PCCn = 287,000reference
- Outcome
- Postprandial glycemic control (glucose metrics, e.g. TIR) after meals without another meal within 4 h before or after
- Follow-up
- [tmeal; tmeal + 4 h]
Methodological detailsrandom 20% sample of commercial database, meal-level comparison
- Random 20% sample of commercial database
- Meal-level comparison
Main finding
Postprandial TIR
Mean TIR difference
0.81 %
By group
As reported in the abstract
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Meal size
Safety
Postprandial TBR <70 mg/dL
Postprandial time below range (TBR) <70 mg/dL
- TBR was low for both methods of declaration
Original publication
A Retrospective Real-Life Study to Compare Glycemic Control Between Simplified Meal Size Estimation and Precise Carbohydrates Counting in Type 1 Diabetes Patients Using DBLG1 Hybrid Closed-Loop System. Diabetes Technol Ther. Published 25 September 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →