ArticleResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2023
Desmopressin in nonsevere hemophilia A: patient perspectives on use and efficacy.
Article in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Paradigm Shift in Hemophilia Care: The Promise of Gene Therapy.Current gene therapy · 2026Review
- A Review of Desmopressin Use in Bleeding Disorders: An Unsung Hero?Biomolecules · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Desmopressin increases plasma factor VIII and von Willebrand factor levels in persons with nonsevere hemophilia A. Patients' perspectives on desmopressin are relevant to increase and optimize its suboptimal use. However, patients' views on desmopressin are not reported. Objectives: To evaluate the perspectives of persons with nonsevere hemophilia A on desmopressin use, barriers for its use, side effects, and their knowledge about desmopressin's efficacy and side effects. Methods: Persons with nonsevere hemophilia A were included in a cross-sectional, national, multicenter study. Questionnaires were filled out by adult patients and children aged ≥12 years themselves. Caretakers filled out questionnaires for children aged <12 years. Results: In total, 706 persons with nonsevere hemophilia A were included (544 mild, 162 moderate, [age range, 0-88 years]). Of 508 patients, 234 (50%) patients reported previous desmopressin use. Desmopressin was considered as at least moderately effective in 171 of 187 (90%) patients. Intranasal administration was the modality of choice for 138 of 182 (76%) patients. Flushing was the most reported side effect in 54 of 206 (26%) adults and 7 of 22 (32%) children. The most frequently reported advantage and disadvantage were the convenience of intranasal, out-of-hospital administration by 56% (126/227) and side effects in 18% (41/227), respectively. Patients' self-perceived knowledge was unsatisfactory or unknown in 28% (63/225). Conclusion: Overall, desmopressin was most often used intranasally and considered effective, with flushing as the most common side effect. The most mentioned advantage was the convenience of intranasal administration and disadvantage was side effects. More information and education on desmopressin could answer unmet needs in patients with current or future desmopressin treatment.
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.