ArticlePatient preference and adherence2013
Transjecting growth hormone: continuous nightmare or controlled nuisance? Evaluation of a new needle-free device.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient preferences for prophylactic regimens requiring regular injections in children and adolescents: a systematic review and thematic analysis.BMJ paediatrics open · 2024Pooled it
- Yushida: an IoT-based smart injection system for long-term management of chronic diseases.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- New insight into the importance of formulation variables on parenteral growth hormone preparations: potential effect on the injection-site pain.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Review
- Maintaining persistence and adherence with subcutaneous growth-hormone therapy in children: comparing jet-delivery and needle-based devices.Patient preference and adherence · 2014Article
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
backgroundAdministering growth-hormone therapy (GHT) is a long-term treatment, associated with avoidance and phobic behaviors in the children involved. The current study examined GHT users' perceptions of a new needle-free device (ZomaJet Vision X [10 mg/mL]) with a lower injection volume compared to the traditional device.
methodsA total of 73 persons participated (mean age ± standard deviation, 10.10 ± 3.60 years) in a longitudinal design. Users' views were studied 4 weeks after having applied both the old and the new device for a period of at least 4 weeks. Satisfaction, ease and frequency of restitution, local sensations, bruises during administering GHT, affective response to local sensations, and subject preference were assessed on the basis of the users' responses.
resultsSubjects' satisfaction with the new device was equal compared with the previous device for the total group of 73 children. However, the subgroup of 59 children who proved tolerant to meta-cresol (new preservative for Vision X only) reported a significantly higher satisfaction rating with the new device compared to the old device (7.7 vs 6.6, P=0.0002). Vision X was evaluated as better on ease and frequency of restitution and the number of bruises. Pain sensations did not differ meaningfully between the two devices. The new device was favored over the previous one in a majority of respondents. Vision X allows easy reconstitution of the solution, which was reflected in the percentage of young children able to prepare transjections themselves being more than doubled, illustrating the greater sense of empowerment in these users. Self-reported adherence to the therapy was good (less than 10% of injections missed) with both devices.
conclusionThe new device ZomaJet Vision X appears to be evaluated more positively than the previous version on criteria that refect users' preferences.
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.