| Title |
Comparison of rechargeable versus battery-operated insulin pumps: temperature fluctuations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/mder.s116666 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paul Vereshchetin, Thomas W McCann, Navdeep Ojha, Ramakrishna Venugopalan, Brian L Levy |
| Abstract |
The role of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (insulin pumps) has become increasingly important in diabetes management, and many different types of these systems are currently available. This exploratory study focused on the reported heating issues that lithium-ion battery-powered pumps may have during charging compared with battery-operated pumps. It was found that pump temperature increased by 6.4°C during a long charging cycle of a lithiumion battery-operated pump under ambient temperatures. In an environmental-chamber kept at 35°C, the pump temperature increased by 4.4°C, which indicates that the pump temperature was above that of the recommended safety limit for insulin storage of 37°C. When designing new pumps, and when using currently available rechargeable pumps in warmer climates, the implications of these temperature increases should be taken into consideration. Future studies should also further examine insulin quality after charging. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 12 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 8% |
| Researcher | 1 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 4 | 33% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 October 2016.
All research outputs
#20,723,696
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#235
of 314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#257,712
of 332,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#10
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,783 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.