ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2013
Using observational data to inform the design of a prospective effectiveness study for a novel insulin delivery device.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Pragmatic Clinical Trial to Compare the Real-World Effectiveness of V-Go versus Standard Delivery of Insulin in Patients with Advanced Type 2 Diabetes.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2019Article
- Regular Insulin Administered With the V-Go Disposable Insulin Delivery Device in a Clinical Diabetes Setting: A Retrospective Analysis of Efficacy and Cost.Clinical diabetes : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2016Article
- The Clinical and Economic Impact of the V-GoDrugs - real world outcomes · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo inform the design and assess the feasibility of a prospective effectiveness study evaluating an insulin delivery device for patients with diabetes mellitus to be conducted within the membership of a large US commercial insurer.
methodsProviders who issued ≥1 insulin prescription between January 1, 2011 and September 30, 2011 were selected from administrative claims contained in the HealthCore Integrated Research Database(SM). Adult diabetes patients with visits to these providers were identified. Providers were dichotomized into high- (HVPs) and low-volume providers (LVPs) based on median number of diabetes patients per provider.
resultsWe identified 15,349 HVPs and 15,313 LVPs (median number of patients = 14). Most HVPs were located in the Midwest (6,291 [41.0%]) and South (5,092 [33.2%]), while LVPs were evenly distributed across regions. Over 80% (12,769) of HVPs practiced family or internal medicine; 6.4% (989) were endocrinologists. HVPs prescribed insulin to an average of 25% of patients. Patients of HVPs (522,527) had similar characteristics as patients of LVPs (80,669), except for geographical dispersion, which followed that of providers. Approximately 65% of patients were aged 21-64 years and 97% had type 2 diabetes. Among patients with ≥1 available HbA1C result during 2011 (103,992), 48.3% (50,193) had an average HbA1C ≥7.0%. Among patients initiating insulin, 79.6% (22,205) had an average HbA1C ≥7.0%.
conclusionThe observed provider and patient populations support the feasibility of the prospective study. Sampling of patients from HVPs is efficient while minimizing bias as patient characteristics are similar to those from LVPs. The study also highlights unmet needs for improved glycemic control since approximately half of patients with diabetes are not on goal.
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.