Cited by 123Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Management and EducationIntravenous Infusion Technology and Safety

Nonmetabolic Complications of Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion: A Patient Survey

Open access
Pickup, John C., Yemane, Nardos, Brackenridge, Anna, Pender, Siobhan·2014·Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

Abstract

Background Little is known about the frequencies and types of nonmetabolic complications occurring in type 1 diabetes patients being treated by modern insulin pump therapy (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion [CSII]), when recorded by standardized questionnaire rather than clinical experience. Subjects and methods A self-report questionnaire was completed by successive subjects with type 1 diabetes attending an insulin pump clinic, and those with a duration of CSII of ≥6 months were selected for analysis (n=92). Questions included pump manufacturer, insulin, infusion set type and duration of use, frequency of infusion set and site problems, pump malfunctions, and patient-related problems such as weight change since starting CSII. Results Median (range) duration of CSII was 3.3 (0.5-32.0) years, and mean ± SD duration of infusion set use was 3.2 ± 0.7 (range 2-6) days. The commonest infusion set problems were kinking (64.1% of subjects) and blockage (54.3%). Blockage was associated with >3 days of use of infusion sets plus lispro insulin in the pump (relative risk [95% confidence interval], 1.71 [1.03-2.85]; P=0.07). The commonest infusion site problem was lipohypertrophy (26.1%), which occurred more often in those with long duration of CSII (4.8 [2.38-9.45] vs. 3.0 [1.50-4.25] years; P=0.01). Pump malfunction had occurred in 48% of subjects (43% in the first year of CSII), with "no delivery," keypad, and battery problems commonly occurring. Although some patients reporte…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/dia.2013.0192

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pickup, J. C., Yemane, N., Brackenridge, A., & Pender, S.
Affiliations
  • Guy's Hospital (GB)
  • Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Pickup, John C.
Venue
Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
Published
2014-03
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
145-149
ISSN
  • 1520-9156 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-8593
OpenAlex
W2094458427
Cited by
123
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 1
FWCI
5.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Eli Lilly and Company
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Intravenous Infusion Technology and Safety
Keywords
insulin pump therapy, type 1 diabetes, lipohypertrophy, pump failure, insulin lispro, weight change, patient survey
MeSH terms
Adipose Tissue, Adult, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1, Female, Humans, Hypertrophy, Hypoglycemic Agents, Injections, Subcutaneous, Insulin, Insulin Infusion Systems, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Risk Factors, Weight Gain, Prevalence, Odds Ratio, Treatment Outcome, Health Care Surveys, Self Report

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