Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24530146›Full record

Trial reportVaccine2014

Microneedle patches: usability and acceptability for self-vaccination against influenza.

James J Norman, Jaya M Arya, Maxine A McClain, Paula M Frew, Martin I Meltzer, Mark R Prausnitz

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Vaccine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 119 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
119citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
13.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

119 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 269 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

59 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

James J NormanGeorgia Institute of Technology, School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, 315 Ferst Drive, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA. Electronic address: jnorman3@gatech.edu.
Jaya M AryaGeorgia Institute of Technology, School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, 315 Ferst Drive, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA. Electronic address: jarya3@gatech.edu.
Maxine A McClainGeorgia Institute of Technology, School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, 315 Ferst Drive, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA. Electronic address: mx.mcclain@gmail.com.
Paula M FrewEmory University, School of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, 1364 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA; Emory University, Rollins School of Public Health, Department of Behavioral Sciences & Health Education, 1518 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA. Electronic address: pfrew@emory.edu.
Martin I MeltzerCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, 1600 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA. Electronic address: qzm4@cdc.gov.
Mark R PrausnitzGeorgia Institute of Technology, School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, 315 Ferst Drive, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA. Electronic address: prausnitz@gatech.edu.
Georgia Institute of Technology · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USEmory University · US

Funding

Influenza vaccination using a microneedle patchU01EB012495 · NIBIB · GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI PRAUSNITZ, MARK R. · 2010 to 2015
$9.6M
NIBIB NIH HHS U01 EB012495
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While therapeutic drugs are routinely self-administered by patients, there is little precedent for self-vaccination. Convenient self-vaccination may expand vaccination coverage and reduce administration costs. Microneedle patches are in development for many vaccines, but no reports exist on usability or acceptability. We hypothesized that naïve patients could apply patches and that self-administered patches would improve stated intent to receive an influenza vaccine. We conducted a randomized, repeated measures study with 91 venue-recruited adults. To simulate vaccination, subjects received placebo microneedle patches given three times by self-administration and once by the investigator, as well as an intramuscular injection of saline. Seventy participants inserted patches with thumb pressure alone and the remainder used snap-based devices that closed shut at a certain force. Usability was assessed by skin staining and acceptability was measured with an adaptive-choice analysis. The best usability was seen with the snap device, with users inserting a median value of 93-96% of microneedles over three repetitions. When a self-administered microneedle patch was offered, intent to vaccinate increased from 44% to 65% (CI: 55-74%). The majority of those intending vaccination would prefer to self-vaccinate: 64% (CI: 51-75%). There were no serious adverse events associated with use of microneedle patches. The findings from this initial study indicate that microneedle patches for self-vaccination against influenza are usable and may lead to improved vaccination coverage.

Indexed as

NeedlesTransdermal PatchAdultFemaleHumansInfluenza, HumanInfluenza VaccinesInjections, IntradermalMaleMiddle AgedPatient PreferenceSelf AdministrationVaccinationYoung AdultInfluenza VaccinesAcceptabilityInfluenzaMicroneedle, Human studyUsability

Identifiers

PMID24530146
PMCPMC3979961
OpenAlexW2103742770

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.