ArticlePharmaceutics2024
Designing a Placebo Microneedle Stamp: Modeling and Validation in a Clinical Control Trial.
Article in Pharmaceutics, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Recently, several clinical studies have been conducted using microneedles (MNs), and various devices have been developed. This study aimed to propose and confirm the feasibility of a placebo control for activating MN clinical research. A 0.5 mm MN stamp with 42 needles was used as a treatment intervention, and a placebo stamp with four acupressure-type needles that did not penetrate was proposed and designed as a control for comparison. First, to check whether the placebo stamp did not invade the skin and to set an appropriate level of pressure to be provided during skin stimulation, two participants were stimulated with five different forces on the forearm, and then the skin was dyed. Secondly, to evaluate the validity of the placebo control group, a blinded study between the MN and placebo stamps was performed on 15 participants. We confirmed that the placebo stamp did not penetrate the skin at any intensity or location. Both types of stamps reported relatively low pain levels, but the MN stamp induced higher pain compared to the placebo stamp. Based on the speculation regarding the type of intervention received, the MN stamp was successfully blinded (random guess), whereas the placebo stamp was unblinded. However, according to a subgroup analysis, it was confirmed that the group with low skin sensitivity was completely blind. Blinding the placebo MN stamp had limited success in participants with low skin sensitivity. Future research on suitable placebo controls, considering the variations in MN stamp length and needle count, is warranted.
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.