Trial reportCurrent diabetes reviews2016
A Prospective Study for Introducing Insulin Pens and Safety Needles in a Hospital Setting. The SANITHY Study.
Trial report in Current diabetes reviews, 2016. 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Needlestick Injuries With Insulin Injections: Risk Factors, Concerns, and Implications of the Use of Safety Pen Needles in the Asia-Pacific Region.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2025Review
- Article
- DropSafe safety pen needle helps to prevent accidental needlesticks after injections: results of a simulated clinical study.Journal of infection prevention · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundto assess costs and safety of insulin pen devices and safety needles as compared to vial/syringes in hospitalized patients requiring insulin therapy in a General Hospital in Northern Italy. MATERIALS AND
methodsin a prospective 9-month study, consecutive patients admitted to three Hospital Units received insulin therapy through either a traditional disposable syringe method, or pen/safety needles with dual-ended protection, or disposable safety syringes. We compared the median direct (insulin and devices) and indirect (insulin supply at discharge, insulin wastage) costs of a 10-day in-hospital insulin treatment in the 3 study groups, additionally accounting for the costs related to the observed needlestick injury rate. Patients' safety during in-hospital stay (hypo- and hyperglycemia episodes) and satisfaction were also assessed.
resultsN=360 patients (55% men, mean age 75.6 years, 57% with DM since ≥10 years) were recruited in the study. Insulin pens had higher median direct cost than both traditional syringes (43 vs. 18 ε/patient, p<.0001) and safety syringes (21.5 ε/patient, p<.0001). However, when also indirect and injuries costs were taken into account, the estimated savings for using pens over traditional syringes were as high as 32 ε/patient (45.8 vs. 77.6 ε/patient, p-value <.0001). No differences in patients' safety were observed. 74% and 12% of patients using pens and syringes would like to continue the method at home, respectively (p<0.0001). DISCUSSION: A selective use of individual pre-filled pens/safety needles for patients who are likely to continue insulin therapy at home may strongly reduce hospital diabetes treatment related costs.
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.