1,5-Anhydroglucitol
Needle-free injection → 1,5-Anhydroglucitol
Needle-free injection → 1,5-Anhydroglucitol
- EvidenceScore™
- Emerging
- Score 59 · Based on 1 study
- ImpactScore™
- 100
- Very Positive
- ConsistencyScore™
- unclear
- Not enough independent studies
Last updated May 7, 2026
Key finding
A 12-day study in 63 hospitalized type 2 diabetes patients found that needle-free insulin injection achieved better blood sugar control, reduced glucose swings, and caused less pain than conventional insulin pens.
This study compared needle-free insulin injectors to traditional insulin pens in hospitalized people with type 2 diabetes needing intensive insulin therapy. After about 12 days, those using needle-free devices had better blood sugar control, less glucose variability, faster achievement of target levels, fewer injection-site problems, less pain, and higher satisfaction without increased low blood sugar episodes.
Quick read
The essential study design details in one scan.
EvidenceScore™
Moderate
Study type
Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs)
Follow-up
Short-Term (≤3 mo)
Risk of bias
Some Concerns
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
Plain-language summary
A plain-language read of the study’s main message and where it applies.
Study focus
A 12-day study in 63 hospitalized type 2 diabetes patients found that needle-free insulin injection achieved better blood sugar control, reduced glucose swings, and caused less pain than conventional insulin pens.
Published in
Publication details and source links for this paper.
Wang J, Liu Z, Jiao L, et al. Efficacy and safety of needle-free injection in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus undergoing intensive insulin therapy: a randomized controlled trial based on the flash glucose monitoring system. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2026;16:1652388. doi:10.3389/fendo.2025.1652388
↓ Fasting plasma glucose (mean reduction 7.24 mmol/L in NFI vs 5.82 mmol/L in CIP, p<0.05)
↓ Postprandial glucose (mean reduction 8.65 mmol/L in NFI vs 6.68 mmol/L in CIP, p<0.05)
↑ Time in range (83.6% in NFI vs 76.8% in CIP, p<0.01)
Evidence network
Understand where this research contributes within the broader evidence network.
This study contributes evidence to Needle-free injection and 1,5-Anhydroglucitol, Glucose variability, Hypoglycemia events, and 6 more.
This study contributes evidence to
Primary intervention
Needle-free injection
Primary outcomes
Evidence topics
Primary intervention
Primary outcomes
Intervention and outcome relationships this study adds to the evidence network.
Editorial context
See why this paper is useful beyond its individual results.
Evidence network role
This section describes how the study fits into the current evidence network. It does not determine whether an intervention works on its own.
2
Related topics
9
Evidence pairs
246
Related studies
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Save studies and evidence pages, organize your personal Evidence Tracker, and keep the research you care about in one place.
Primary evidence
Evidence relationship
Related evidence
Evidence relationship
Save evidence
Evidence relationship
Save evidence
Core evidence
The primary outcomes reported in this study.
Needle-free injection → 1,5-Anhydroglucitol
Needle-free injection → 1,5-Anhydroglucitol
Needle-free injection → Glucose variability
Needle-free injection → Glucose variability
Needle-free injection → Hypoglycemia events
Needle-free injection → Hypoglycemia events
Needle-free injection → Injection pain score
Needle-free injection → Injection pain score
Needle-free injection → Injection-site adverse reactions
Needle-free injection → Injection-site adverse reactions
Needle-free injection → Time to glycemic target
Needle-free injection → Time to glycemic target
Needle-free injection → Total daily insulin dose
Needle-free injection → Total daily insulin dose
Needle-free injection → Treatment satisfaction
Needle-free injection → Treatment satisfaction
Evidence Library
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
This study enrolled hospitalized adults aged 18-70 with type 2 diabetes requiring intensive insulin therapy, including newly diagnosed patients with HbA1c ≥9% or FPG ≥11.1 mmol/L, or those with persistent poor control despite 3 months of oral medications. Average participants were in their early 40s, overweight, and had moderately high baseline glucose levels.
This was a very short study in a hospital setting with intensive monitoring that may not reflect real-world outpatient use. The open-label design means participants and staff knew which device was being used, which could affect subjective outcomes like pain and satisfaction ratings. Longer studies are needed to determine if these benefits persist over months or years and whether needle-free devices improve long-term adherence and outcomes. The study also didn't assess cost-effectiveness or device availability issues.
Evidence Library
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
Explore related studies, evidence collections, and research questions.
Relationships organized using the Dediabetes Evidence Intelligence™ framework.
This study contributes to evidence on Insulin Delivery Systems and Insulin Resistance, Insulin Delivery Systems and Glucose Variability.
This study contributes to the evidence on the following intervention-outcome relationships.
Devices & Technology
Devices & Technology
Curated evidence collections and hubs this study is part of.
All studies measuring Glucose Variability
Measures Glucose Variability as a key outcome.
All studies on Insulin Delivery Systems
Contributes to Insulin Delivery Systems evidence base.
All studies measuring Insulin Resistance
Measures Insulin Resistance as a key outcome.
Jump to pre-filtered views in Evidence Explorer.
1 results
1 results
1 results
1 results
1 results
Generated from the study's connected evidence using Evidence Intelligence™.
Insulin Delivery Systems may improve CGM Time in Range.
ConsistencyScore™: Results are generally consistent across studies.
Ranked evidence signals
Time in range
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | strong positive | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Time to glycemic target
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | strong positive | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on 17 supporting studies with generally consistent results and a positive effect signal.
Limitations
Insulin Delivery Systems may improve Hypoglycemia.
ConsistencyScore™: Results are mixed and should be interpreted cautiously.
Ranked evidence signals
Hypoglycemia events
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | weak positive | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is cautious because the available studies report mixed findings.
Limitations
Insulin Delivery Systems may worsen Insulin Resistance or be associated with harm.
ConsistencyScore™: Results are generally consistent across studies.
Ranked evidence signals
Total daily insulin dose
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | weak positive | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on 3 supporting studies and existing graph evidence signals.
Limitations
Insulin Delivery Systems may improve Glucose Variability.
ConsistencyScore™: Results are generally consistent across studies.
Ranked evidence signals
Glucose variability
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | strong positive | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on 7 supporting studies with generally consistent results and a positive effect signal.
Limitations
Next steps
Choose a next path through related evidence topics, Evidence Explorer views, and research summaries.
Follow the topics this study contributes to.
Open broader Evidence Explorer views for this relationship.
Read related research summaries.
Focused on evidence, not advertising.
Your data is always protected.
New studies added every day.