ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2014
Comparative Assessment of Lixisenatide, Exenatide, and Liraglutide Pen Devices: A Pilot User-Based Study.
Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- National Poison Center Trends in GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Exposures Following FDA Approval for Weight Loss.Journal of medical toxicology : official journal of the American College of Medical Toxicology · 2026Article
- GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Exposures Are Increasingly Common and Generally Associated with Mild Symptoms: A Single Poison Center Experience.Journal of medical toxicology : official journal of the American College of Medical Toxicology · 2024Article
- Comparison of the Usability, Accuracy, Preference, and Satisfaction of Three Once-Weekly Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonist Pen Devices in People With Type 2 Diabetes.Diabetes spectrum : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2023Article
- Evaluation of Patient-Reported Satisfaction and Clinical Efficacy of Once-Weekly Semaglutide in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: An Ambispective Study.Advances in therapy · 2022Article
- A Review of Practical Issues on the Use of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2019Review
- Comparison of Usability, Accuracy, Preference, and Satisfaction Among Three Once-Weekly GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Pen Devices.Diabetes spectrum : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2018Article
- Discrete Choice Experiment Attribute Selection Using a Multinational Interview Study: Treatment Features Important to Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.The patient · 2017Article
- Lixisenatide in type 2 diabetes: latest evidence and clinical usefulness.Therapeutic advances in chronic disease · 2016Review
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 at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGlucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are a relatively recent addition to the treatment options for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and are administered using prefilled pen devices.
methodIn this open-label task and interview-based pilot study, 3 GLP-1 receptor agonist pen devices-exenatide (Byetta
resultsTasks were completed faster (P < .001) and with higher successful performance (P = .001) with the lixisenatide pen than with the exenatide pen, whereas the liraglutide pen was not statistically significant versus the exenatide pen on these parameters. Overall, user satisfaction was statistically higher for the lixisenatide and liraglutide pens versus the exenatide pen (P < .001 for both).
conclusionsLixisenatide and liraglutide pens are associated with higher user satisfaction compared with the exenatide pen. In addition, the lixisenatide pen is faster and results in fewer errors than its comparator (exenatide). The lixisenatide pen may therefore be a suitable choice for patients with T2DM, including older and pen device-naïve patients, and those with visual impairments and reduced manual dexterity.
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.