ArticlePatient preference and adherence2017
A cohort of French pediatric patients with primary immunodeficiencies: are patient preferences regarding replacement immunotherapy fulfilled in real-life conditions?
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- British Society for Immunology and United Kingdom Primary Immunodeficiency Network (UKPIN) consensus guideline for the management of immunoglobulin replacement therapy.Clinical and experimental immunology · 2022Guideline
- Safety and Tolerability of Subcutaneous IgPro20 at High Infusion Parameters in Patients with Primary Immunodeficiency: Findings from the Pump-Assisted Administration Cohorts of the HILO Study.Journal of clinical immunology · 2021Trial
- Patient Preferences for Faster Home-Based Subcutaneous Immunoglobulin Infusion Therapy and the Effect on Adverse Events.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Review
- Delivery of subcutaneous immunoglobulin by rapid "push" infusion for primary immunodeficiency patients in Manitoba: a retrospective review.Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2020Article
- Primary and Secondary Immunodeficiency Diseases in Oncohaematology: Warning Signs, Diagnosis, and Management.Frontiers in immunology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess quality of life and satisfaction regarding immunoglobulin-replacement therapy (IgRT) treatment according to the route (intravenous Ig [IVIg] or subcutaneous Ig [SCIg]) and place of administration (home-based IgRT or hospital-based IgRT). SUBJECTS AND
methodsChildren 5-15 years old treated for primary immunodeficiency disease (PIDD) with IgRT for ≥3 months were included in a prospective, noninterventional cohort study and followed over 12 months. Quality of life was assessed with the Child Health Questionnaire - parent form (CHQ-PF)-50 questionnaire. Satisfaction with IgRT was measured with a three-dimensional scale (Life Quality Index [LQI] with three components: factor I [F
resultsA total of 44 children (9.7±3.2 years old) receiving IgRT for a mean of 5.6±4.5 years (median 4.1 years) entered the study: 18 (40.9%) were receiving hospital-based IVIg, two (4.6%) were receiving home-based IVIg, and 24 (54.6%) were treated by home-based SCIg. LQI F
conclusionHome-based SCIg gave higher satisfaction regarding therapy settings than hospital-based IVIg. No difference was found on other subscales of the LQI or CHQ-PF50 between hospital-based IVIG and home-based SCIG.
Indexed as
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.