ArticleJournal of diabetes science and technology2017
Patients' Preferences for Insulin Injection Devices.
Article in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Enhancing Choices Regarding the Administration of Insulin Among Patients With Diabetes Requiring Insulin Across Countries and Implications for Future Care.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this issue, Pohlmeier et al report on a device assessment study in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes, to investigate the ease of use/learning and patient preference of the new prefilled U300 insulin glargine injection pen. Human factor studies are required by regulatory agencies and should ensure the proper use of the device in the context of the provided instructions. The patients found the device easy to learn/use and had a stable treatment satisfaction despite introduction of injection treatment. The lack of a control arm, the short duration, and the small sample size make it difficult to translate these results into clinical practice. It is encouraging to know, however, that the new pen is accepted by one of the intended patient populations.
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.