ArticlePatient preference and adherence2020
Patients' Perceptions and Preferences Regarding Two Different Forms of Methotrexate Autoinjectors for Moderate to Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis: A European Crossover Survey.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- International Survey to Evaluate Current Options for Subcutaneous Injection of Methotrexate (MTX) and a New Button-Free MTX Autoinjector.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTreatment adherence is crucial in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The device used by the patients for self-injections may influence adherence to methotrexate (MTX) treatment. A MTX-autoinjector has been recently marketed in Europe. This crossover survey compared this MTX-autoinjector (MTX-autoinjector A) and an already existing MTX-autoinjector (MTX-autoinjector B) from the patients' perspective. PATIENTS AND
methodsA total of 100 patients with moderate to severe RA using MTX-autoinjector A (N=35) or MTX-autoinjector B (N=65) were interviewed by an independent Global Market Research Company. Face-to-face interviews were performed using a computer-assisted personal interview system. Evaluation of the unfamiliar MTX-autoinjector was performed once the patients had received information, seen a demonstration, and performed a virtual testing.
resultsA substantial advantage in favor of the MTX-autoinjector A was found with respect to all surveyed indicators. Respectively, 95% and 55% of the users of MTX-autoinjectors A and B claimed to be very or totally satisfied with their familiar MTX-autoinjector. With respect to several specific characteristics, 91% and 60% of the users of MTX-autoinjectors A and B were very or totally satisfied with their familiar MTX-autoinjector, 29% and 77% found the unfamiliar MTX-autoinjector better, and 26% and 73% were interested in trying the unfamiliar MTX-autoinjector. Injection mode (with no push button) and end-of-injection recognition system (with audible signal) were identified as key features explaining a stronger preference for MTX-autoinjector A.
conclusionEven though deserving further studying, these findings are expected to guide clinicians when prescribing or renewing prescription of MTX-autoinjector, in particular in poor or non-compliant patients. In a context of growing interest in shared decision-making, the objective would be to choose with each patient the best suited MTX-autoinjector, and ultimately, to obtain a better treatment adherence.
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.