Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26170642›Full record

ReviewPatient preference and adherence2015

The optimal choice of medication administration route regarding intravenous, intramuscular, and subcutaneous injection.

Jing-Fen Jin, Ling-Ling Zhu, Meng Chen, Hui-Min Xu, Hua-Fen Wang, Xiu-Qin Feng, Xiu-Ping Zhu, Quan Zhou

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Patient preference and adherence, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 137 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
137citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
13.0field-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

137 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 285 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Systematic Literature Review of Outcomes Associated With Adherence to Haemophilia Drug Therapy.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

77 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jing-Fen JinDivision of Nursing, Division of Nursing, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Ling-Ling ZhuVIP Care Ward, Division of Nursing, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Meng ChenDepartment of Pharmacy, The Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Hui-Min XuDepartment of Pharmacy, The Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Hua-Fen WangDivision of Nursing, Division of Nursing, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Xiu-Qin FengDivision of Nursing, Division of Nursing, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Xiu-Ping ZhuDepartment of Pharmacy, The Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Quan ZhouDepartment of Pharmacy, The Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University · CNZhejiang University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntravenous (IV), intramuscular (IM), and subcutaneous (SC) are the three most frequently used injection routes in medication administration. Comparative studies of SC versus IV, IM versus IV, or IM versus SC have been sporadically conducted, and some new findings are completely different from the dosage recommendation as described in prescribing information. However, clinicians may still be ignorant of such new evidence-based findings when choosing treatment methods.

methodsA literature search was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Sciences™ Core Collection to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of SC, IV, and IM administration in head-to-head comparative studies.

results"SC better than IV" involves trastuzumab, rituximab, antitumor necrosis factor medications, bortezomib, amifostine, recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, recombinant interleukin-2, immunoglobulin, epoetin alfa, heparin, and opioids. "IV better than SC" involves ketamine, vitamin K1, and abatacept. With respect to insulin and ketamine, whether IV has advantages over SC is determined by specific clinical circumstances. "IM better than IV" involves epinephrine, hepatitis B immu-noglobulin, pegaspargase, and some antibiotics. "IV better than IM" involves ketamine, morphine, and antivenom. "IM better than SC" involves epinephrine. "SC better than IM" involves interferon-beta-1a, methotrexate, human chorionic gonadotropin, hepatitis B immunoglobulin, hydrocortisone, and morphine. Safety, efficacy, patient preference, and pharmacoeconomics are four principles governing the choice of injection route. Safety and efficacy must be the preferred principles to be considered (eg, epinephrine should be given intramuscularly during an episode of systemic anaphylaxis). If the safety and efficacy of two injection routes are equivalent, clinicians should consider more about patient preference and pharmacoeconomics because patient preference will ensure optimal treatment adherence and ultimately improve patient experience or satisfaction, while pharmacoeconomic concern will help alleviate nurse shortages and reduce overall health care costs. Besides the principles, the following detailed factors might affect the decision: patient characteristics-related factors (body mass index, age, sex, medical status [eg, renal impairment, comorbidities], personal attitudes toward safety and convenience, past experience, perception of current disease status, health literacy, and socioeconomic status), medication administration-related factors (anatomical site of injection, dose, frequency, formulation characteristics, administration time, indication, flexibility in the route of administration), and health care staff/institution-related factors (knowledge, human resources).

conclusionThis updated review of findings of comparative studies of different injection routes will enrich the knowledge of safe, efficacious, economic, and patient preference-oriented medication administration as well as catching research opportunities in clinical nursing practice.

Indexed as

administration routedosage and administrationefficacymedication safetypatient preferencepharmacoeconomic

Identifiers

PMID26170642
PMCPMC4494621
OpenAlexW1718641735

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.