ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2012
Comparison of patient preference for two insulin injection pen devices in relation to patient dexterity skills.
Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Injecting without pressing a button: An exploratory study of a shield-triggered injection mechanism.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2018Trial
- 7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2026.Diabetes care · 2026Review
- 7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2025.Diabetes care · 2025Review
- 7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024.Diabetes care · 2024Review
- Factors Affecting Performance of Insulin Pen Injector Technology: A Narrative Review.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2023Review
- 7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023.Diabetes care · 2023Review
- Development of an Insulin Pen is a Patient-Centric Multidisciplinary Undertaking: A Commentary.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2022Article
- Development of a Measure to Assess Attitudes Towards Nasal versus Autoinjector Glucagon Delivery Devices for Treatment of Severe Hypoglycemia.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2022Article
- The Review of Insulin Pens-Past, Present, and Look to the Future.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Review
- Patient Perceptions of and Preferences Between Characteristics of Injectable Diabetes Treatments.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2021Article
- User-Centric Approach to Specifying Technical Attributes of Drug Delivery Devices: Empirical Study of Autoinjector-Cap Removal Forces.Patient preference and adherence · 2021Article
- Preference for a prefilled syringe or an auto-injection device for delivering golimumab in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis: a randomized crossover study.Patient preference and adherence · 2018Article
- Formative usability evaluation of a fixed-dose pen-injector platform device.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2018Article
- Discrete Choice Experiment Attribute Selection Using a Multinational Interview Study: Treatment Features Important to Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.The patient · 2017Article
- Patients' Preferences for Insulin Injection Devices.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2017Article
- NovoPen Echo(®) insulin delivery device.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2016Review
- Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test in an Italian Population.Rehabilitation research and practice · 2016Article
- Usability of devices for self-injection: results of a formative study on a new disposable pen injector.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2014Article
- Analysis of comparison of patient preference for two insulin injection pen devices in relation to patient dexterity skills.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImpaired dexterity has been reported to be prevalent in diabetes patients independent from the existence of diabetic neuropathy. This study was performed to investigate the impact of dexterity impairment on patient preference for two insulin pen injection devices (InnoLet and FlexTouch).
methodsNinety patients [54 male/36 female; age (mean ± standard deviation), 62 ± 8 years; disease duration, 18 ± 11 years; hemoglobin A1c, 7.2 ± 1.0%] were included in this investigation and were stratified into four different groups based on the results of a dexterity test (Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test) and assessment of visual impairment: 15 type 1 (group A) and 30 type 2 (group B) patients with impaired dexterity, 30 type 1/type 2 patients with visual impairment (group C), and 15 type 1/type 2 patients without any impairment (group D). The patients performed a cognitive function test (number connection test), were introduced to the devices in random order, and were asked to perform some mock injections before completing a six-item standardized preference questionnaire.
resultsThere was a strong preference for FlexTouch in all groups. All unimpaired patients (100%, group D) preferred FlexTouch, as did the vast majority in all other groups. Only 11% of the patients with impaired cognitive function preferred InnoLet, as did a few patients with more severely impaired dexterity or with visual impairment (group A, 13%; group B, 3%; group C, 14%).
conclusionsPatient dexterity skills may have an influence on device preference, especially if the impairment is more pronounced.
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.