ArticleThe patient2014
Intravenous versus Subcutaneous Drug Administration. Which Do Patients Prefer? A Systematic Review.
Article in The patient, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
74 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Analyzing the impact of subcutaneous injection needle, device, and administration characteristics on patient pain, anxiety, and safety: a systematic literature review.Drug delivery · 2026Pooled it
- Systematic Literature Review of Outcomes Associated With Adherence to Haemophilia Drug Therapy.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia · 2025Pooled it
- Subcutaneous hydration and medications infusions (effectiveness, safety, acceptability): A systematic review of systematic reviews.PloS one · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of crovalimab versus eculizumab in complement inhibitor-naïve patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria: Chinese subgroup analysis of the phase 3 COMMODORE 2 study.Annals of hematology · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Pharmacokinetics of Subcutaneous and Intravenous Ceftriaxone in an Older Population: The PhASAge Study.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Trial
- Model-informed pediatric dose selection of marzeptacog alfa (activated): An exposure matching strategy.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2023Trial
- Safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of a single ascending subcutaneous dose of GSK3772847 in healthy participants.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2023Trial
- Safety experience with continued exposure to ofatumumab in patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis for up to 3.5 years.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2022Trial
- Rapid and sustained B-cell depletion with subcutaneous ofatumumab in relapsing multiple sclerosis: APLIOS, a randomized phase-2 study.Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England) · 2022Trial
- Efficacy and safety of subcutaneous prophylaxis with dalcinonacog alfa in adults with haemophilia B.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia · 2021Trial
- Subcutaneous Injection Site Pain of Formulation Matrices.Pharmaceutical research · 2021Trial
- Clinical Evaluation of an Investigational 5 mL Wearable Injector in Healthy Human Subjects.Clinical and translational science · 2021Trial
- Trial
- Delivery devices and container closure systems for co-formulated and co-administered biologics.Antibody therapeutics · 2026Review
- Optimizing Subcutaneous Antibody Dosing Regimens Through Operating Space Maps: rHuPH20 Case Study.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2026Article
- Persistence and safety of subcutaneous infliximab up to 1 year after switching from intravenous infliximab in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease: a multicenter real-world cohort study.Inflammatory bowel diseases · 2026Article
- Transdermal needle-free drug delivery approaches and activation mechanism.Materials today. Bio · 2026Review
14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntravenous (IV) drug delivery is commonly used for its rapid administration and immediate drug effect. Most studies compare IV to subcutaneous (SC) delivery in terms of safety and efficacy, but little is known about what patients prefer.
methodsA systematic review was conducted by searching seven electronic databases for articles published up to February 2014. Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and/or crossover designs investigating patient preference for SC versus IV administration. The risk of bias in the RCTs was determined using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Any discrepancies were resolved by consensus.
resultsThe search identified 115 publications, but few (6/115) met the inclusion criteria. Patient populations and drugs investigated were diverse. Four of six studies demonstrated a clear patient preference for SC administration. Main factors associated with SC preference were time saving and the ability to have treatment at home. Only three studies used study-specific instruments to measure preference.
conclusionsResults suggest that patients prefer SC over IV delivery. Patient preference has clearly been neglected in clinical research, but it is important in medical decision making when choosing treatment methods as it has implications for adherence and quality of life. If the safety and efficacy of both administration routes are equivalent, then the most important factor should be patient preference as this will ensure optimal treatment adherence and ultimately improve patient experience or satisfaction. Future drug efficacy and safety studies should include contemporaneous, actual patient preference where possible, utilizing appropriate measures.
Identifiers
25015302What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.