ReviewJournal of the advanced practitioner in oncology
Subcutaneous Administration of Bortezomib: A Pilot Survey of Oncology Nurses.
Review in Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- FmocFF Peptide Hydrogel Is a Promising Matrix for Encapsulation and Controlled Release of the Anticancer Peptide Drug Bortezomib.Biomolecules · 2025Article
- Article
- Flexible care in breast cancer.ESMO open · 2021Review
- Subcutaneous Delivery of High-Dose/Volume Biologics: Current Status and Prospect for Future Advancements.Drug design, development and therapy · 2021Review
- Practical considerations for the integration of subcutaneous targeted therapies into the oncology clinic.Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2019Article
- Optimizing the Bioavailability of Subcutaneously Administered Biotherapeutics Through Mechanochemical Drivers.Pharmaceutical research · 2017Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Subcutaneous (SC) administration of the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib was approved in the United States and European Union in 2012. There is limited guidance regarding how to administer SC bortezomib and a general lack of clear direction on optimal techniques for administering SC chemotherapy injections. Nurses may be utilizing different techniques, and inconsistent techniques may result in injection-site reactions, causing patient discomfort and treatment cessatioin. This observational survey of oncology nurses in community oncology clinics aimed to identify techniques being used and explore nurses' opinions about SC bortezomib administration. A 44-question electronic survey was developed, based on the current literature regarding appropriate techniques for administering SC injections. A total of 43 nurses from 17 clinics in 12 states responded. The majority (74%) had been practicing oncology nursing for at more than 5 years. Respondents predominantly used and preferred the abdomen for injections (88%); 81% used a skin lift to ensure injection into adipose tissue. There was no relationship between the angle of insertion and the needle length; 51% used an air-bubble technique. Nurses took 3-5 (49%), 5-10 (35%), 10-30 (9%), or > 30 (7%) seconds to administer each mL of SC bortezomib injection. All nurses completely/somewhat agreed that practice guidelines would be important for standardizing SC bortezomib administration. Advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) shared the responsibility for ordering SC bortezomib, according to 53% of respondents. These findings could help APRNs improve the quality of patient care, may help minimize adverse events and maximize effective therapy, and could help inform the development of practice guidelines.
Identifiers
What 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.