ReviewFrontiers in immunology2025
Patient-reported outcomes with subcutaneous immunoglobulin in secondary immunodeficiency.
Review in Frontiers in immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Infection prophylaxis following anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies in childhood kidney diseases.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2026Review
- Conference proceedings from the Western Canadian Neuromuscular Conference (WCNMC) - September 27-29, 2024, Calgary, Canada.Journal of neuromuscular diseases · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Subcutaneous (SCIG) and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) replacement are both used to prevent infections in patients with secondary immunodeficiency (SID). Compared with IVIG, SCIG has fewer systemic side effects and, additionally, facilitates home-based treatment. Shared decision-making practice should include discussion of aspects such as patient preference as well as the associated risks and benefits of treatment. We review the available evidence for the use of SCIG treatment in patients with SID, focusing on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). In most studies, there were improvements to health-related quality of life with SCIG treatment, compared with before initiating SCIG without prior IVIG treatment, or after switching to SCIG from IVIG treatment, or a no-SCIG/IVIG cohort. Treatment satisfaction with SCIG was similar between patients with SID and primary immunodeficiency disease. Patient preference and perception assessments highlighted the benefits of SCIG compared with IVIG, such as ease of use and administration, convenience, and time-effectiveness. In addition, many patients self-administered SCIG at home. Such aspects may be of specific benefit to patients with SID and hematological malignancy by reducing the risk of infection exposure in clinical settings. PRO data may be useful during shared decision-making discussions with patients with SID.
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.