Table 1.

Evaluation of Four Prefilled Insulin Pen Devices by Patients with Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus^a

Evaluation of pen features: percentage of time rated as “best”	SoloSTAR® A	FlexPen® B	Lillyb C	Pen X D
Design/esthetics
Exterior design and styling	41C,D	34D	25	13
Size and portability	47C,D	36D	28	15
How well the cap fits onto the pen	45D	35	49D	23
Tactile feel	47B,C,D	23	13	22
Usability
Easy/intuitive to figure out	60B,C,D	25	18	11
Easy to set dose	57B,C,D	26	15	16
Easy to read that you have set the exact dose	48B,C,D	23	21	19
Easy to correct dose if overdialed	55B,C,D	31C	20	24
Auditory feedback	40C,D	39C,D	12	15
Requires low numbers of turns to set 40 units	46B,D	27	32D	12
How far the dose button sticks out (40 units)	39B,D	19	47B,D	9
Effort it takes to inject 40 units	63B,C,D	17	17	3
Easy to determine the entire dose delivery	55B,C,D	27	27	15
Easy to determine the amount left in the cartridge	49B,D	26	35	19

^aPen feature comparison: percentage of time that the pens were rated as “best” by patients using the SoloSTAR, FlexPen, Lilly disposable pen, and Pen X (n = 150). Letters denote statistical significance versus the corresponding letter, at p < 0.05. Respondents selected the one pen they considered “best” on each attribute. Row percentages may add to >100%, as some respondents could not select one pen as “best,” but instead opted for “ties.”

^bLilly disposable pen.