↓ Skip to main content

Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of insulin delivery by continuous subcutaneous infusion compared to multiple daily injections

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of insulin delivery by continuous subcutaneous infusion compared to multiple daily injections
Published in
Trials, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-0658-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jo Blair, John W Gregory, Dyfrig Hughes, Colin H Ridyard, Carrol Gamble, Andrew McKay, Mohammed Didi, Keith Thornborough, Emma Bedson, Lola Awoyale, Emma Cwiklinski, Matthew Peak

Abstract

Intensive insulin therapy with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) devices or multiple daily injections (MDI) reduces the risk of long-term vascular complications of type I diabetes (TID). Both treatments are used routinely, but there is little evidence to demonstrate superiority of either treatment. If CSII treatment reduces the risk of long-term complications or is associated with an improved quality of life (QoL), the additional cost of this therapy may be compensated for by a reduction in long-term health expenditure. If there is no demonstrable difference between treatments, health-care resources may be better invested elsewhere. This study aims to address this gap in knowledge. This is a pragmatic, randomised controlled trial (RCT). Fifteen centres, selected to represent a population with a broad demographic, will recruit 316 patients, newly diagnosed with TID, aged between 7 months and 15 years. Exclusion criteria include additional pathologies or treatments likely to affect glycaemic control and a first-degree relative with TID. Randomisation to CSII or MDI is stratified for age, gender and recruiting centre. The randomised treatment starts within 15 days of diagnosis. Patients will be trained to adjust their insulin dose according to carbohydrate intake and blood glucose level. Study visits coincide with routine clinic appointments at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months when data relating to routine clinical assessments, adverse events and concomitant medications are collected. Health utilities questionnaires are completed at each visit and a diabetes-specific QoL questionnaire (PedsQL) at diagnosis, 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is glycaemic control (HbA1c) at 12 months. Secondary outcome measures include QoL, insulin use, growth and weight gain, adverse events and a health economics appraisal. This is the first adequately powered RCT comparing CSII and MDI in a non-selected population, treated according to standard practice guidelines. It will produce data that are meaningful to individual patients and local and national policymakers. The study was registered with the European Clinical Trials Database on 4 November 2010, reference 2010-023792-25 .

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Finland 1 <1%
Unknown 104 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Researcher 11 10%
Other 9 9%
Student > Postgraduate 9 9%
Other 24 23%
Unknown 26 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 6%
Psychology 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 27 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 22 May 2015.
All research outputs
#7,176,260
of 12,434,754 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#1,900
of 3,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,776
of 224,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#22
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,434,754 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,032 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 224,689 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.