An evaluation of overall effectiveness and treatment satisfaction with intravenous immunoglobulin among patients with immune thrombocytopenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A global assessment of patient satisfaction that considers therapeutic effect, toxicities, and convenience is needed to evaluate the acceptability of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) as a treatment for patients with immune thrombocytopenia (ITP). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional pilot study to assess the feasibility and usefulness of a treatment satisfaction questionnaire for adult patients with ITP receiving IVIG in an academic hematology clinic. Treatment satisfaction was evaluated by administration of a validated survey-based tool 7 days after IVIG administration. The tool assessed treatment satisfaction across four domains (effectiveness, toxicity, convenience, and global satisfaction); results were summarized with mean scores. RESULTS: Twelve patients were enrolled (nine females; median age, 44 years; interquartile range, 35-69 years). Mean platelet increment after infusion was 54.2 × 10(9) /L (SD, 47.6 × 10(9) /L). Treatment satisfaction scores were highest in the side effect burden domain (88.2/100; SD, 19.3; higher scores indicate a lower burden of side effects). Six participants reported IVIG-associated toxicities; most were "slightly" or "not at all" dissatisfied by the impact of side effects. The domain with the lowest score was convenience (62.0/100; SD, 24.7). CONCLUSION: The assessment of treatment satisfaction using a survey-based assessment tool was feasible for patients receiving IVIG and provided meaningful results that discriminated between domains. Patients found IVIG treatment to be inconvenient, but were satisfied with its tolerability as an ITP treatment. Larger studies are needed to determine the precise impact on each domain and the reproducibility of study results. Patient satisfaction scores can be used to compare different ITP treatments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".