ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2023
A Comparison of Instructions for Use Documents and Manufacturer Produced Administration Videos for Biological Products.
Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare Instructions for Use (IFU) and Manufacturer Produced Administration Videos (MPAV) for biological products to describe if they are highly similar or different. To identify differences between the two that may lead to medication errors and to point out possible solutions to optimize safety.
methodsWe screened 139 biological products having both an IFU and a MPAV. Differences between the IFU and MPAV of each biological product were noted and categorized by importance and how likely it would cause harm to patients. Strategies were discussed based on differences observed.
resultsOf the products screened, 51 had an IFU and a MPAV available for evaluation. They were primarily made to support the use of auto-injectors (n = 25) and pre-filled syringes (n = 19). Of this group, we found that 11 had no differences between the IFU and MPAV, while the other 40 had at least one or more identifiable differences. Differences were stratified into the following sub-categories from most to least prevalent: word choice differences, supplementary information, missing information, and unaligned directions. We looked at the distribution of differences per biological product and found an average of two differences per MPAV (IQR 1-3).
conclusionWe suggest that when sponsors create or update MPAVs, to focus on aligning critical content between the respective IFU and MPAV. We believe that it is possible for MPAVs to potentially reduce medication errors as a non-text-based media form and that care should be taken to avoid substantial differences in critical content between the IFU and MPAV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37031279What 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.