SynthesisJournal of diabetes science and technology2016
Pen Devices for Insulin Self-Administration Compared With Needle and Vial: Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.
- 2023 Clinical Practice Guidelines for Diabetes Management in Korea: Full Version Recommendation of the Korean Diabetes Association.Diabetes & metabolism journal · 2024Guideline
- 2023 Clinical Practice Guidelines for Diabetes Mellitus of the Korean Diabetes Association.Diabetes & metabolism journal · 2023Guideline
- Dose Accuracy, Injection Force, and Usability Assessment of a New Half-Unit, Prefilled Insulin Pen.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2018Trial
- Management of type 2 diabetes, 2026. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD).Diabetologia · 2026Article
- Plasticizing Diabetes Care: The Metabolic Threat of Plastic-Associated Endocrine Disruptors and Micro-/Nanoplastics in Clinical Medicine.Current diabetes reports · 2026Review
- A Stroke Mimic Driven by Fear: Nonketotic Hyperglycemic Hemichorea in a Patient With Needle Phobia.Cureus · 2026Article
- Antidiabetic prescribing patterns, quality, and economic influence in resource-limited settings: evidence from a Pakistani tertiary care hospital using WHO/INRUD indicators.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Level of Satisfaction Among Patients Using Insulin Administered by Pen vs Vial/Syringe. An Observational Prospective Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Article
- 7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2025.Diabetes care · 2025Review
- 7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024.Diabetes care · 2024Review
- Comparison of simplicity, convenience, safety, and cost-effectiveness between use of insulin pen devices and disposable plastic syringes by patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a cross-sectional study from Bangladesh.BMC endocrine disorders · 2023Article
- 7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023.Diabetes care · 2023Review
- Analysis of Nurse and Patient Preferences for Pre-Filled Pen Devices for Self-Injection of Highly Purified Human Menopausal Gonadotropin (HP-hMG, MENOPURPatient preference and adherence · 2023Article
- Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes, 2022. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD).Diabetologia · 2022 · on this mapReview
- Trends in U.S. Insulin Use and Glucose Monitoring for People with Diabetes: 2009-2018.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2022Article
- Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes, 2022. A Consensus Report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD).Diabetes care · 2022 · on this mapReview
- Smart Insulin Pens: Advancing Digital Transformation and a Connected Diabetes Care Ecosystem.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2022Article
- Can Smart Pens Help Improve Diabetes Management?Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2022Article
- The Review of Insulin Pens-Past, Present, and Look to the Future.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Review
- Leveraging advances in diabetes technologies in primary care: a narrative review.Annals of medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPen devices offer advantages compared with vial and syringe (VaS). The purpose of this article was to evaluate efficacy of pen devices compared to VaS.
methodsA systematic review of literature was performed in 8 different databases. References were independently screened and selected. Primary observational or experimental studies comparing pen devices with VaS for insulin administrations were included. Studies on specific populations were excluded. Risk of bias was evaluated using appropriate tools. Data on glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), hypoglycemia, adherence, persistence, patient preference, and quality of life (QOL) were collected. Meta-analysis was performed when appropriate. Heterogeneity and risk of publication bias were evaluated. Otherwise, descriptive analyses of the available data was done.
resultsIn all, 10 348 articles were screened. A total of 17 studies were finally selected: 7 experimental and 10 analytical. The populations of the included articles were mainly composed of adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Important risk of bias was found in all of the articles, particularly experimental studies. Meta-analyses were performed for HbA1c, hypoglycemia, adherence and persistence. Pen device showed better results in mean HbA1c change, patients with hypoglycemia, adherence and persistence compared to VaS. No difference was observed in number of patients achieving <7% HbA1c. Preference studies showed a tendency favoring pen devices, however nonvalidated tools were used. One QoL study showed improvements in some subscales of SF-36.
conclusionsThere is evidence that pen devices offer benefits in clinical and, less clearly, patient-reported outcomes compared to VaS for insulin administration. However, these results should be taken with caution.
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.