Guest guest Posted November 27, 2008 Report Share Posted November 27, 2008 That's interesting, but I guess as long as one is pretty consistent, you'd still be okay. I haven't noticed much in the way of fluctuations with my pump (one of the Minimed 512 that they used in the study). I find more fluctuations when I try to extend the length of time that I use a given site - and I'm beyond the 3 day mark, the absorption rate is affected. I also find some differences between positioning the canula in my lower abomen and my upper abdomen - perhaps there is more scar tissue after years of injections in my " favourite places " which affect it, who knows. I wonder if the study looked at how much fat versus muscle mass there was relative to the positioning of the tubing. I know that even when I was on shots, where I took them made a difference. I also see that the study was sponsored, at least in part, by the makers of Omnipod, who,. based on their results in their favour, benefit. Once should look at who participated in the study (MM was used in the study, but didn't specify that they took part), the number of participants, and control groups, should always need to be considered into the mix. The study used a pump that is an older model (example, the MM512 from about 5 years ago), and compared it to a newer model (the Omnipod has been on the market for 3 years now, I believe). I'd be interested in finding out from any users of the Omnipod, who previously used a more traditional style pump, as to whether they found any differences in their basal rate requirements after they started the Omnipod. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.