↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Simplicity, safety, and acceptability of insulin pen use versus the conventional vial/syringe device in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in Lebanon

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
Simplicity, safety, and acceptability of insulin pen use versus the conventional vial/syringe device in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in Lebanon
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, March 2015
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s78225
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wijdan H Ramadan, Noura A Khreis, Wissam K Kabbara

Abstract

The aim of the study was to evaluate the simplicity, safety, patients' preference, and convenience of the administration of insulin using the pen device versus the conventional vial/syringe in patients with diabetes. This observational study was conducted in multiple community pharmacies in Lebanon. The investigators interviewed patients with diabetes using an insulin pen or conventional vial/syringe. A total of 74 questionnaires were filled over a period of 6 months. Answers were entered into the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software and Excel spreadsheet. t-test, logistic regression analysis, and correlation analysis were used in order to analyze the results. A higher percentage of patients from the insulin pen users group (95.2%) found the method easy to use as compared to only 46.7% of the insulin conventional users group (P 0.001, relative risk [RR]: 2.041, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.178-3.535). Moreover, 61.9% and 26.7% of pen users and conventional users, respectively, could read the scale easily (P 0.037, RR 2.321, 95% CI: 0.940-5.731), while 85.7% of pen users found it more convenient shifting to pen and 86.7% of the conventional users would want to shift to pen if it had the same cost. Pain perception was statistically different between the groups. A much higher percentage (76.2%) of pen users showed no pain during injection compared to only 26.7% of conventional users (P 0.003, RR 2.857, 95% CI: 1.194-6.838). The insulin pen was significantly much easier to use and less painful than the conventional vial/syringe. Proper education on the methods of administration/storage and disposal of needles/syringes is needed in both groups.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Other 5 10%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 18 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 20 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 24 July 2017.
All research outputs
#3,415,054
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#199
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,218
of 270,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#2
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
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 270,992 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.