Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30410311›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2018

Patients', physicians', nurses', and pharmacists' preferences on the characteristics of biologic agents used in the treatment of rheumatic diseases.

Luciana Scalone, Piercarlo Sarzi-Puttini, Luigi Sinigaglia, Carlomaurizio Montecucco, Roberto Giacomelli, Giovanni Lapadula, Ignazio Olivieri, Angela Maria Giardino, Paolo Angelo Cortesi, Lorenzo Giovanni Mantovani and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. 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

11 authors.

Luciana ScaloneCentre of Research on Public Health, University of Milano-Bicocca, and CHARTA Foundation, Milan, Italy, luciana.scalone@unimib.it.
Piercarlo Sarzi-PuttiniRheumatology Unit, L. Sacco University Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Luigi SinigagliaRheumatology Unit, G. Pini Hospital, Milan, Italy.
Carlomaurizio MontecuccoUniversity of Pavia School of Medicine, IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo Foundation, Pavia, Italy.
Roberto GiacomelliRheumatology Unit School of Medicine, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Giovanni LapadulaRheumatology Unit, University of Bari, Bari, Italy.
Ignazio OlivieriRheumatology Department of Lucania, San Carlo Hospital of Potenza, Potenza, Italy.
Angela Maria GiardinoMSD Italy, Rome, Italy.
Paolo Angelo CortesiCentre of Research on Public Health, University of Milano-Bicocca, and CHARTA Foundation, Milan, Italy, luciana.scalone@unimib.it.
Lorenzo Giovanni MantovaniCentre of Research on Public Health, University of Milano-Bicocca, and CHARTA Foundation, Milan, Italy, luciana.scalone@unimib.it.
Monica MecchiaMSD Italy, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo estimate preferences in relevant treatment characteristics evaluated by different groups involved in the management of patients with rheumatic diseases. SUBJECTS AND

methodsWe surveyed patients with rheumatic diseases, and rheumatologists, nurses, and pharmacists with experience in treatment with/provision of biologic drugs for these patients. Through a discrete choice experiment, participants evaluated 16 possible scenarios in which pairs of similarly efficacious treatments were described with six characteristics: 1) frequency of administration; 2) mode and place of administration; 3) manner, helpfulness, efficiency, and courtesy of health personnel; 4) frequency of reactions at the site of drug administration; 5) severity of generalized undesired/allergic reactions; and 6) additional cost. The direction and strength of preferences toward each characteristic level and the relative importance of each characteristic were estimated through a random-effects conditional logistic regression model.

resultsIn total, 513 patients, 110 rheumatologists, 51 nurses, and 46 pharmacists from 30 centers in Italy participated. Characteristics 3, 4, and 6 were the most important for every subgroup; 1 was least important for patients and rheumatologists, 2 was least important for pharmacists, and 2 and 5 were least important for nurses. For characteristic 2, pharmacists preferred subcutaneous self-injection with a syringe; nurses preferred assisted infusion at an infusion center close to the patient's home; patients and rheumatologists preferred subcutaneous self-injection with a pen.

conclusionThe different preferences for some characteristics shown by the different groups can play an important role, together with purely clinical aspects, in the choice and consequent benefit of treatments, contributing also to a more satisfactory use of resources.

Indexed as

ankylosing spondylitisbiologic drugsdecision makingpreferencespsoriatic arthritisrheumatoid arthritis

Identifiers

PMID30410311
PMCPMC6199235

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.