ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2025
Designing a Patient Preference Study on Subcutaneous Medical Devices: Incorporating Health Authority Scientific Advice and Patient Perspectives.
Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Incorporating the Patient Voice into Attribute and Level Selection for a Preference Study: A Qualitative Study in Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer.The patient · 2026Article
- Patient and Caregiver Preferences for Once-Weekly Injection Devices for the Treatment of Growth Hormone Deficiency.Journal of the Endocrine Society · 2026Article
- Patterns in Attribute Selection and Development Reporting in Patient Preference Studies Between 2007-2024: A Systematic Literature Review.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2026Article
- Quantifying Patient Preferences for Basal Insulin Treatments in Adults Living with Type 2 Diabetes: A Discrete Choice Experiment in Canada, Spain, France, and Japan.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper describes the planning of a patient preference study for evaluating device features for the subcutaneous (SC) delivery of high dose/large volume (e.g., > 2 ml) of drugs. Multiple sources, including qualitative patient interviews, the involvement of patient partners, and solicitation of advice from the US Food and Drugs Administration (FDA), were used to refine the attributes and levels in the development of a preference study protocol to investigate what Multiple Sclerosis (MS) patients consider important regarding medical device features for high dose SC administration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.