Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26792584›Full record

SynthesisThe patient2016

A Systematic Review of Patients' Perspectives on the Subcutaneous Route of Medication Administration.

Colin H Ridyard, Dalia M M Dawoud, Lorna V Tuersley, Dyfrig A Hughes

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The patient, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Patient Experience with the SensoReadyPatient preference and adherence · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Colin H RidyardCentre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Ardudwy, Normal Site, Holyhead Road, Bangor, LL57 2PZ, UK.
Dalia M M DawoudFaculty of Pharmacy, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Lorna V TuersleyCentre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Ardudwy, Normal Site, Holyhead Road, Bangor, LL57 2PZ, UK.
Dyfrig A HughesCentre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Ardudwy, Normal Site, Holyhead Road, Bangor, LL57 2PZ, UK. d.a.hughes@bangor.ac.uk.
Bangor University · GBCairo University · EG

Funding

Medical Research Council G0800792Medical Research Council MR/K025635/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSubcutaneous injections allow for self-administration, but consideration of patients' perspectives on treatment choice is important to ensure adherence. Previous systematic reviews have been limited in their scope for assessing preferences in relation to other routes of administration.

objectiveOur objective was to examine patients' perspectives on subcutaneously administered self-injectable medications when compared with other routes or methods of administration for the same medicines.

methodsNine electronic databases were searched for publications since 2000 using terms pertaining to methods of administration, choice behavior, and adverse effects. Eligibility for inclusion was determined through reference to specific criteria by two independent reviewers. Results were described narratively.

resultsOf the 1726 papers screened, 85 met the inclusion criteria. Studies were focused mainly on methods of insulin administration for diabetes but also included treatments for pediatric growth disorders, multiple sclerosis, HIV, and migraine. Pen devices and autoinjectors were favored over administration with needle and syringe, particularly with respect to ergonomics, convenience, and portability. Inhalation appeared to be more acceptable than subcutaneous injection (in the case of insulin), but how subcutaneous infusion, intramuscular injection, and needle-free injection devices compare with subcutaneous injections in terms of patient preference is less certain.

conclusionsThe review identified a number of studies showing the importance of the methods and routes of drug delivery on patient choice. However, studies were prone to bias, and further robust evidence based on methodologically sound approaches is required to demonstrate how patient choice might translate to improved adherence.

Indexed as

Patient PreferenceChoice BehaviorDrug Administration RoutesHumansInjections, SubcutaneousPerceptionSelf Administration

Identifiers

PMID26792584
OpenAlexW2295845944

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.