Cited by 276Diabetes Management and ResearchSkin Diseases and DiabetesIntramuscular injections and effects

Prevalence and risk factors of lipohypertrophy in insulin-injecting patients with diabetes

Blanco, M., Hernández, M.T., Strauss, K.W., Amaya, M.·2013·Diabetes & Metabolism

Abstract

Introduction Our objective was to assess the frequency of lipohypertrophy (LH) and its relationship to site rotation, needle reuse, glucose variability, hypoglycaemia and use of insulin. Methods The study included 430 outpatients injecting insulin who filled out a wide-ranging questionnaire regarding their injection technique. Then, a diabetes nurse examined their injection sites for the presence of LH. Results Nearly two-thirds (64.4%) of patients had LH. There was a strong relationship between the presence of LH and non-rotation of sites, with correct rotation technique having the strongest protective value against LH. Of the patients who correctly rotated sites, only 5% had LH while, of the patients with LH, 98% either did not rotate sites or rotated incorrectly. Also, 39.1% of patients with LH had unexplained hypoglycaemia and 49.1% had glycaemic variability compared with only 5.9% and 6.5%, respectively, in those without LH. LH was also related to needle reuse, with risk increasing significantly when needles were used > 5 times. Total daily insulin doses for patients with and without LH averaged 56 and 41 IU/day, respectively. This 15 IU difference equates to a total annual cost to the Spanish healthcare system of > €122 million. This was also the first study in which the use of ultrasound allowed the description of an "echo signature" for LH. Conclusion Correct injection site rotation appears to be the critical factor in preventing LH, which is associated with reduced g…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.diabet.2013.05.006

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 25 · Cited by 276

Authors
Blanco, M., Hernández, M. T., Strauss, K. W., & Amaya, M.
Affiliations
Novartis (Spain) (ES)
Corresponding author
Strauss, K.W.
Venue
Diabetes & Metabolism
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-10
Volume
39
Issue
5
Pages
445-453
ISSN
1262-3636 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1982984639
Cited by
276
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 1
FWCI
14.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diabetes & Metabolism (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Forskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och Välfärd
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Skin Diseases and Diabetes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Intramuscular injections and effects
Keywords
lipohypertrophy, insulin injection, injection site rotation, needle reuse, hypoglycemia, glycemic variability, insulin dose, diabetes complications, health care costs, injection technique, risk factors, prevalence, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, patient education, diabetes self-management education
MeSH terms
Adipose Tissue, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hypertrophy, Hypoglycemic Agents, Injections, Subcutaneous, Insulin, Male, Middle Aged, Primary Health Care, Risk Factors, Spain, Prevalence, Odds Ratio, Guidelines as Topic, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review