Search

Aim: To review systematically the published literature addressing whether continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) provides any quality of life benefits to people with Type 1 diabetes. Methods: Electronic databases and published references were searched and a consultation with two professional groups was undertaken to identify relevant studies published up to July 2005. A multistep selection process was then undertaken to identify those articles which met the specific selection criteria, which were then critically reviewed. Results: Eighty-four potential relevant articles were identified from examination of titles and abstracts published during the specified time frame. Of these, 28 articles were retrieved in full text, of which 17 fulfilled the specific criteria for inclusion. Mixed results emerged from existing literature. Of the five randomized controlled trials, three reported mixed results, with one study reporting quality of life benefits and one reporting no evidence of quality of life benefits. Conclusions: There is conflicting evidence reported in the various studies on the quality of life benefits of CSII in Type 1 diabetes. Existing research is flawed, making a judgement about the quality of life benefits of insulin pump use difficult. There is no strong evidence against quality of life benefits associated with CSII or otherwise, with poor methodology and inconsistent assessment of quality of life clouding the issue. The lack of reported benefit is probably a function of this rather than pump therapy not offering any quality of life benefits.

Aim: To review the literature estimating the cross-sectional prevalence of clinical depression in adults with Type 1 diabetes. Methods: Electronic databases and published references were used to identify studies published between January 2000 and June 2004, with a previous meta-analysis used to identify studies before 1 January 2000. Results: Between January 2000 and June 2004, a further five eligible studies were identified. Only one was a controlled study using diagnostic interviewing to determine rates of depression. Taking all of the eligible studies identified by the previous meta-analysis and this search, the prevalence of clinical depression in controlled studies was 12.0% for people with diabetes compared with 3.2% for control subjects. In studies with no control group, the prevalence of clinical depression was 13.4%. Conclusion: There are wide-ranging differences reported in the various studies on the prevalence of depression in Type 1 diabetes. In view of the differing methods of diagnosis and small participant numbers, the results should be viewed with caution. A controlled study using diagnostic interviewing techniques to determine levels of depression is recommended to provide a clearer picture of both the prevalence and characteristics of that depression.