ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2009
Analysis of studies that compare the dose accuracy of prefilled insulin pens.
Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multiple industry-sponsored studies have been published about the accuracy of insulin delivery using prefilled insulin pens. Although the study by Weise and colleagues in this issue of Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology found that the Novo Nordisk device was slightly more accurate than the Sanofi-Aventis device, one can anticipate a Sanofi-Aventis-funded study that may find the opposite, because no internationally acceptable, publicly funded, unbiased scientific organization exists to perform head-to-head comparisons of drugs and devices in an evidence-based manner. Currently, clinicians are left on their own to determine whether a study on this topic was conducted in an accurate, unbiased manner. A fundamental redesign of clinical research could reinvigorate and revolutionize the process by which innovations travel from the bench to the bedside. As we anticipate changes in healthcare in the future, it is imperative that the approval and postmarketing surveillance process is revised to support the practice of true evidence-based medicine.
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.