Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37581193›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2023

Evolution of the RebiSmart

Yu-Ting Lin, Tamara Will, Charlotte Wickham, Petra Boeree, Dominic Jack, Matthew Keiser

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Yu-Ting LinDevice and Connected Solution Engineering, Global Healthcare Operations, Ares Trading SA (an affiliate of Merck KGaA), Eysins, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-5238-3208
Tamara WillHuman Factors Research & Design, Emergo by UL, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1079-8362
Charlotte WickhamHuman Factors Research & Design, Emergo by UL, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0009-0009-9092-017X
Petra BoereeHuman Factors Research & Design, Emergo by UL, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4738-3251
Dominic JackMedical Unit Neurology & Immunology, Global Research & Development, Merck Serono Ltd (an affiliate of Merck KGaA), Feltham, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8629-553X
Matthew KeiserDevice and Connected Solution Engineering, Global Healthcare Operations, Ares Trading SA (an affiliate of Merck KGaA), Eysins, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-6870-6585
Merck Serono (Switzerland) · CHMerck (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The RebiSmart Methods: To conclude a series of formative usability studies, a final formative study of an updated prototype version of the RebiSmart electromechanical autoinjector was conducted to identify the device's strengths, potential device-related use errors, opportunities for improvement, and to inform device safety. The findings were incorporated into the next-generation device, RebiSmart 3.0, which was then evaluated in a summative usability study involving 45 participants. The study consisted of evaluation activities - use scenarios and knowledge tasks - designed to validate mitigations to reduce the risks of not successfully completing critical tasks for successful administration of medication. During each evaluation activity, observations (including use errors, instances of moderator assistance, close calls, and difficulties) were recorded, focusing on the potential for serious harm arising from not completing critical tasks. Participants then provided their subjective assessment of RebiSmart 3.0 as part of a user needs survey that assessed device usability and design. Results: Regarding critical tasks, main findings were failure to inspect/dispose of the cartridge and not washing hands or disinfecting the injection site. These issues could be readily overcome by modifying future training. In the subjective assessment, 43 out of 45 participants considered the updated device safe to use as-is. In the user needs survey, overall, the participants rated the device positively. Conclusion: Findings validate the safety of use of the next-generation device, RebiSmart 3.0, through a comprehensive evaluation of use scenarios and knowledge tasks by the study participants, who provided positive ratings of the device in the user needs survey.

Indexed as

adherenceinterferon beta-1amultiple sclerosisRebiSmart electromechanical autoinjector

Identifiers

PMID37581193
PMCPMC10423595
OpenAlexW4385648749

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.