Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37676537›Full record

SynthesisBioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy2023

Patients' Perceptions of Biosimilars: A Systematic Review.

Qiyou Wu, Zhitao Wang, Xin Wang, Hui Yu, Jing Sun

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Biosimilars for Australian Dermatologists.The Australasian journal of dermatology · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Qiyou WuSchool of Health Policy and Management, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Zhitao WangSchool of Health Policy and Management, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Xin WangSchool of Health Policy and Management, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Hui YuClinical Oncology School of Fujian Medical University, Fujian Cancer Hospital, Fuzhou, Fujian, China.
Jing SunSchool of Health Policy and Management, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China. sunjing@sph.pumc.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4646-1174
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNFujian Medical University · CN

Funding

Peking Union Medical College PUMC Public Health (2019) 22
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo systematically summarize and evaluate the findings of existing studies about patients' perceptions of biosimilars by assessing their attitudes and knowledge.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review of published studies concerning patients' perceptions of biosimilars, using databases of China National Knowledge Infrastructure, SinoMed, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Two independent reviewers screened a total of 2197 Chinese or English papers published between 1 January 2018, and 1 October 2022. We assessed the quality of the included studies by applying the Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tools.

resultsForty-three studies were included in the review, with the majority originating from Europe (n = 22) and North America (n = 10). Of these studies, 37 were cross-sectional quantitative studies, three were quasi-experimental studies, and the remaining three were qualitative studies based on semi-structured interviews. The sample sizes of the included studies ranged from 9 to 6554 patients. Twenty-two out of 31 studies investigating patients' acceptance of biosimilars found that most participants expressed satisfaction with treatment using biosimilars. However, doubts about the clinical effects and regulatory approval pathway could negatively influence patients' attitudes. The majority of patients understood the economic advantages of biosimilars; however, some incorrectly connected lower prices with lower quality. Patients generally lacked knowledge about biosimilars. There were 6-51% of participants who were familiar with biosimilars, and 25-58% thought they did not know enough about biosimilars. Physicians, pharmacists, medicines agencies, academia, and patient associations were identified as the main sources of information on biosimilars for patients. Healthcare providers not informing or advising patients about switching may hinder patients from acquiring enough knowledge.

conclusionsThe majority of patients expressed satisfaction with treatment using biosimilars, but limited knowledge continued to impede their perceptions. Doubts about the clinical effects and regulatory approval pathway were identified as major factors that negatively influenced patients' attitudes towards biosimilars, while the impact of a price advantage was mixed. It is essential to maintain a focus on educating healthcare professionals about biosimilars, including their clinical outcomes and the regulatory pathway, which equips them to provide comprehensive and informed guidance to patients.

Indexed as

Biosimilar PharmaceuticalsEuropeHealth PersonnelHumansBiosimilar Pharmaceuticals

Identifiers

PMID37676537
OpenAlexW4386501644

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.