Current literature lacks structured methodologies for analyzing medical technologies' impact from the patient-centered care perspective. This study introduces, applies and validates 'Patient-Centered Care Impact Analysis' (PCIA) as a method for identifying patient-centered care associated demands and expectations for a particular technology and assessing its compliance with these demands. PCIA involves five stages: (1) demand identification, (2) ranking demands' impact magnitude, (3) scoring demand compliance (DC), (4) demand priority (DP) assignment based on impact magnitude and compliance, (5) generating a summative impact priority number (IPN). PCIA was performed as a comparative assessment of two central nervous system (CNS) drug-delivery platforms; SipNose, a novel noninvasive Direct-Nose-to-Brain (DNTB), vs. the standard-of-care invasive intrathecal/intracerebroventricular injection (Invasive I/I). Study participants included a ranking team (RT) without experience with the SipNose technology that based their scoring on experimental data; and a validation team (VT) experienced with the SipNose platform. All had experience with, or knowledge of, InvasiveI/I. Demand identification and impact magnitude were performed by one content and one assessment expert. Each participant assessed each technology's DC. DP scores, IPN's and IPN DNTB:InvasiveI/I ratios were generated for each technology, for each team, based on DC and summative DP scores, respectively. Both teams assigned DNTB higher DC scores, resulting in higher DNTB DP, IPN scores and DNTB:InvasiveI/I IPN ratios. Lack of difference between team assessments of DP and IPN ratio validate PCIA as an assessment tool capable of predicting patient-centered clinical care quality for a new technology. The significant differences between the platforms highlight SipNose's patient-care centered advantages as an effective CNS drug-delivery platform.