CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 265Diabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes Management and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Clinical Trial of Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Versus Multiple Daily Injections in Older Adults With Type 2 Diabetes

Open access
Herman, William H., Ilag, Liza L., Johnson, Susan L., Martin, Catherine L., Sinding, Joyce, Al Harthi, Abdulaziz, Plunkett, Cynthia D., LaPorte, Frankie B., Burke, Ray, Brown, Morton B., Halter, Jeffery B., Raskin, Philip·2005·Diabetes Care
DOI 10.2337/diacare.28.7.1568
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

OBJECTIVE—To compare the efficacy and safety of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) and multiple daily injection (MDI) in older adults with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes and to assess treatment satisfaction and quality of life. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—Adults (n = 107) ≥60 years of age (mean age 66 years) with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (mean duration 16 years, BMI 32 kg/m2, and HbA1C [A1C] 8.2%) were randomized to CSII (using insulin lispro) or MDI (using insulin lispro and insulin glargine) in a two-center, 12-month, prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Efficacy was assessed with A1C, safety by frequency of hypoglycemia, and treatment satisfaction and quality of life with the Diabetes Quality of Life Clinical Trial Questionnaire and the 36-item short-form health survey, version 2. RESULTS—Forty-eight CSII subjects (91%) and 50 MDI subjects (93%) completed the study. Mean A1C fell by 1.7 ± 1.0% in the CSII group to 6.6% and by 1.6 ± 1.2% in the MDI group to 6.4%. The difference in A1C between treatment groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.20). Eighty-one percent of CSII subjects and 90% of MDI subjects experienced at least one episode of minor (self-treated) hypoglycemia (P = 0.17), and three CSII and six MDI subjects experienced severe hypoglycemia (P = 0.49). Rates of severe hypoglycemia were similarly low in the two groups (CSII 0.08 and MDI 0.23 events per person-year, P = 0.61). Weight gain did not differ between groups (P = 0.70). Treatment satisfaction improved significantly with both CSII and MDI (P < 0.0001), and the difference between groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS—In older subjects with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, both CSII and MDI achieved excellent glycemic control with good safety and patient satisfaction.

Overview

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 · 10.2337/diacare.28.7.1568

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 23 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–265 of 265

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Herman, W. H., Ilag, L. L., Johnson, S. L., Martin, C. L., Sinding, J., Al Harthi, A., Plunkett, C. D., LaPorte, F. B., Burke, R., Brown, M. B., Halter, J. B., & Raskin, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
  • Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan
ORCID
Venue
Diabetes Care
Publisher
American Diabetes Association
Published
2005-07-01
Volume
28
Issue
7
Pages
1568-1573
ISSN
  • 0149-5992 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-5548
DOI
10.2337/diacare.28.7.1568
OpenAlex
W2135131610
Cited by
265
References
23
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 15
FWCI
12.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • University of Michigan
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (5P60DK-20572, P60DK020572)
  • National Center for Research Resources (M-01RR00042, M01RR000042)
  • NIH Clinical Center
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Education
Keywords
insulin pump therapy, multiple daily insulin injections, type 2 diabetes, older adults, insulin-treated diabetes, glycemic control, HbA1c, hypoglycemia, insulin lispro, insulin glargine, treatment satisfaction, quality of life, weight gain
MeSH terms
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Drug Administration Schedule, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Hypoglycemia, Hypoglycemic Agents, Injections, Subcutaneous, Insulin, Insulin Infusion Systems, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Weight Gain, Patient Satisfaction

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