ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2008
United States patient preference and usability for the new disposable insulin device Solostar versus other disposable pens.
Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of a Novel Wellness Assessment Device (Preventiometer): A Feasibility Pilot Study.Global advances in health and medicine · 2019Article
- Patients' Preferences for Insulin Injection Devices.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2017Article
- Evaluation of Patient Satisfaction After Using Prefilled Insulin Pen in Real Life in Lithuania.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2015Observational
- Different extent of hypoxic-ischemic brain damage in newborn rats: histopathology, hemodynamic, virtual touch tissue quantification and neurobehavioral observation.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2015Article
- Comparative Assessment of Lixisenatide, Exenatide, and Liraglutide Pen Devices: A Pilot User-Based Study.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2014Article
- Predictor variables and an equation for estimating HbA1c attainable by initiation of basal supported oral therapy.Journal of diabetes investigation · 2012Article
- Injection force of reusable insulin pens: Novopen 4, Lilly Luxura, Berlipen, and ClikSTAR.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2011Article
- Practical aspects of insulin pen devices.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2010Review
- Analysis of studies that compare the dose accuracy of prefilled insulin pens.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2009Article
- Forum for Injection Technique and Therapy Expert Recommendations, India: The Indian Recommendations for Best Practice in Insulin Injection Technique, 2017.Indian journal of endocrinology and metabolismReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The uptake of insulin pen use has been slow in the United States, despite their advantages over the vial/ syringe. We present results of a United States subset of 150 patients with type 1/type 2 diabetes, who were enrolled in an open-label study, that assessed usability, pen features, and patient preferences for four prefilled insulin pens: SoloSTAR, FlexPen, Lilly disposable pen, and a prototype, Pen X. Overall, the SoloSTAR and FlexPen were more user-friendly; 95 and 88% of patients, respectively, completed the steps correctly (without safety/attach-needle step-deemed independent of device) versus the Lilly disposable pen (60%) and Pen X (61%; all p < 0.05). The SoloSTAR was rated highest most frequently for pen feature comparisons. Results suggest that the SoloSTAR and FlexPen could potentially facilitate insulin use in the United States.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.