ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2025
Nurses' perspectives on injection devices for controlled ovarian stimulation in
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Introduction: The design and functionality of injection devices for controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) significantly influence dose accuracy and patient comfort, affecting adherence and treatment success. This study explores the perspectives of couple infertility nurses from the Gulf Council Cooperation (GCC) countries on COS injection devices and their impact on patient experience and adherence. Materials and methods: A cross-sectional, multicentre, quantitative study was conducted among couple infertility nurses from high- and low-volume assisted reproductive technology (ART) clinics in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Kuwait. A structured survey was used to assess nurses' views on three injection modalities: pre-filled injection pens, syringes/vials, and the COMBO regimen (interchangeable use of pens and vials). Results: Forty-two nurses were included. The participants perceived the pre-filled pens as easier to use, more convenient, and quicker to teach than syringes. Training time for pre-filled pen use was predominantly less than ten minutes, with 48% requiring under five minutes and 52% requiring under ten minutes. In contrast, training on vial and syringe use was more time-consuming; only 14% reported taking under ten minutes, 55% required 5-10 minutes, and 31% took more than ten minutes. Compared to the COMBO regimen, 96% found the pen easier to teach and faster to train on, and 100% expressed confidence in patients' ability to self-administer correctly. Satisfaction with the pre-filled pen was high, with 95% and 96% of nurses satisfied or very satisfied when compared to syringes and the COMBO regimen, respectively. A majority (91%) recommended the pen as their first choice or most frequent recommendation. Additionally, nurses perceived lower clinic traffic and fewer errors with the pen, indicating potential economic and safety benefits. Conclusion: This exploratory, descriptive survey suggests that nurses in couple infertility centres in the GCC region perceive multidose pre-filled pens as easier to use and teach than traditional syringes or COMBO regimens.
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.