↓ Skip to main content

Comment on the New Indian Injection Technique Recommendations: Critical Appraisal of the Real-World Implementation of the Current Guidelines

Overview of attention for article published in Diabetes Therapy, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
Title
Comment on the New Indian Injection Technique Recommendations: Critical Appraisal of the Real-World Implementation of the Current Guidelines
Published in
Diabetes Therapy, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s13300-017-0262-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Felice Strollo, Sandro Gentile

Abstract

With an eye on the sequence of two Indian papers concurrently published in Diabetes Therapy, this paper analyzes skin differences among races and points to a lack of organized structured education sessions as the main cause of the high prevalence of lipodystrophy (LD) and consequent poor metabolic control. Only half of all insulin-treated patients reach their therapeutic targets worldwide. The factors involved in this are manifold, including the choice of overlong and repeatedly reused needles, as well as a failure to systematically rotate injection sites, all of which lead to skin LD. Regularly issued guidelines and expert recommendations provide suggestions about how to correct poor injection techniques, but LD still occurs at a high rate and is associated with poor metabolic control, a high risk of complications, frequent severe hypoglycemic episodes, and huge health and social costs. Poor knowledge of subcutaneous tissue anatomy and the physiological response to insulin injection by both health care personnel and patients may contribute to this problem. Moreover, differences in body structure among the races present in our multiethnic societies must be taken into account when choosing needle length and shooting technique in order to avoid accidental intramuscular injections.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 4 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Other 2 13%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 5 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 25%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 13%
Arts and Humanities 1 6%
Psychology 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 5 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 May 2017.
All research outputs
#18,546,002
of 22,968,808 outputs
Outputs from Diabetes Therapy
#743
of 1,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,315
of 309,828 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetes Therapy
#15
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,968,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,035 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 309,828 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.