Cited by 63Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Management and EducationDiabetes Treatment and Management

Pen Devices for Insulin Self-Administration Compared With Needle and Vial: Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis

Open access
Lasalvia, Pieralessandro, Barahona-Correa, Julián Esteban, Romero-Alvernia, Diana Marcela, Gil-Tamayo, Sebastián, Castañeda-Cardona, Camilo, Bayona, Juan Gabriel, Triana, Juan José, Laserna, Andrés Felipe +4 more·2016·Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology

Abstract

Objectives: Pen devices offer advantages compared with vial and syringe (VaS). The purpose of this article was to evaluate efficacy of pen devices compared to VaS. Methods: A systematic review of literature was performed in 8 different databases. References were independently screened and selected. Primary observational or experimental studies comparing pen devices with VaS for insulin administrations were included. Studies on specific populations were excluded. Risk of bias was evaluated using appropriate tools. Data on glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), hypoglycemia, adherence, persistence, patient preference, and quality of life (QOL) were collected. Meta-analysis was performed when appropriate. Heterogeneity and risk of publication bias were evaluated. Otherwise, descriptive analyses of the available data was done. Results: In all, 10 348 articles were screened. A total of 17 studies were finally selected: 7 experimental and 10 analytical. The populations of the included articles were mainly composed of adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Important risk of bias was found in all of the articles, particularly experimental studies. Meta-analyses were performed for HbA1c, hypoglycemia, adherence and persistence. Pen device showed better results in mean HbA1c change, patients with hypoglycemia, adherence and persistence compared to VaS. No difference was observed in number of patients achieving <7% HbA1c. Preference studies showed a tendency favoring pen devices, however nonvalidated tools were used. One QoL study showed improvements in some subscales of SF-36. Conclusions: There is evidence that pen devices offer benefits in clinical and, less clearly, patient-reported outcomes compared to VaS for insulin administration. However, these results should be taken with caution.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1932296816633721

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Even when clinical characteristics suggest use of a particular medication based on clinical trial evidence, preferences regarding route of administration, injection devices, side effects, or cost may prevent use by some individuals.

    “Even when clinical characteristics suggest the use of a particular medication based on the available evidence from clinical trials, preferences regarding route of administration, injection devices, side effects, or cost may prevent use by some individuals (65).”

    From Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes, 2022. A Consensus Report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) (2022) · cites this paper as [65]

    The Preference and Discussion sections report that patients favored insulin pens over vials and syringes, and that injection pain can be a barrier to adherence. The paper does not establish that preferences about route of administration, side effects, or cost prevent people from using a medication indicated by clinical-trial evidence; its evidence concerns insulin delivery devices. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Injecting insulin with a syringe or pen is the insulin delivery method used by most people with diabetes.

    “Injecting insulin with a syringe or pen (136-147) is the insulin delivery method used by most people with diabetes (142,148), although inhaled insulin is also available.”

    From 7. Diabetes Technology: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2025 (2025) · cites this paper as [142]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 33 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [27]27. Shelmet J, Schwartz S, Cappleman J, Peterson G, Skovlund S, Lytzen L. Preference and resource utilization in elderly patients: InnoLet versus vial/syringe. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2004;63(1):27-35.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lasalvia, P., Barahona-Correa, J. E., Romero-Alvernia, D. M., Gil-Tamayo, S., Castañeda-Cardona, C., Bayona, J. G., Triana, J. J., Laserna, A. F., Mejía-Torres, M., Restrepo-Jimenez, P., Jimenez-Zapata, J., & Rosselli, D.
Affiliations
  • Pontificia Universidad Javeriana (CO)
  • Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Medical School, Bogota, Colombia
Corresponding author
Rosselli, Diego
Venue
Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology
Published
2016-02-25
Volume
10
Issue
4
Pages
959-966
ISSN
1932-2968 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2292128997
Cited by
63
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6
FWCI
0.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
Keywords
insulin pen devices, insulin self-administration, type 2 diabetes, glycemic control, HbA1c, hypoglycemia, medication adherence, patient preferences, quality of life, insulin delivery devices
MeSH terms
Diabetes Mellitus, Disposable Equipment, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Needles, Self Administration, Syringes

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