METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 2000 to February 2022. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was adopted. The registration ID is CRD42022319078 in PROSPERO.

METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials were performed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and quality of life of automated BI titration versus conventional care. The literature in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane databases from January 2000 to February 2022 were searched to identify relevant studies. Risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs), and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effect meta-analyses. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.

FINDINGS: Six of the 7 eligible studies (889 patients) were included in meta-analyses. Low- to moderate-quality evidence suggests that patients who use automated BI titration versus conventional care may have a higher probability of reaching a target of HbA1c <7.0% (RR, 1.82 [95% CI, 1.16-2.86]); and a lower level of HbA1c (MD, -0.25% [95% CI, -0.43 to -0.06%]). No statistically significant differences were detected between the two groups in fasting glucose results, incidences of hypoglycemia, severe or nocturnal hypoglycemia, and quality of life, with low to very low certainty for all the evidence.

INTERPRETATION: Automated BI titration is associated with small benefits in reducing HbA1c without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia. Future studies should explore patient attitudes and the cost-effectiveness of this approach.