ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2014
Influence of refill adherence method when comparing level of adherence for different dosing regimens.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A VOSviewer-Based Bibliometric Analysis of Prescription Refills.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Review
- Adherence to antidepressants among women and men described with trajectory models: a Swedish longitudinal study.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016Article
- Understanding Adherence and Prescription Patterns Using Large-Scale Claims Data.PharmacoEconomics · 2016Article
- Article
- Risk Factors for Fatal Hyperglycaemia Confirmed by Forensic Postmortem Examination - A Nationwide Cohort in Sweden.PloS one · 2016Article
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
purposeTo examine the impact of two methods when estimating refill adherence in patients using bisphosphonates with different dosing regimens.
methodsIn the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register, 18,203 new users of bisphosphonates aged 18-85 years were identified between 1 July 2006 and 30 June 2007 and followed for a maximum of 2 years. The patients were categorised based on dosing regimen: one tablet daily, one tablet weekly, switching between these regimens, and other regimens. Refill adherence was estimated with Continuous measure of Medication Acquisition (CMA, adherent if CMA ≥ 80 %) and the maximum gap method (adherent if gaps <45 days). Differences in adherence between patients in the groups were assessed with logistic regression models controlling for confounding factors.
resultsThe proportion of patients classified as adherent was higher using CMA compared with patients classified as adherent using the maximum gap method. Patients on one tablet weekly had significantly lower adherence compared with patients on one tablet daily in the main analyses of both methods (the maximum gap method: 73 % vs. 80 %; adjusted OR=0.71; 95 % CI 0.57-0.89 and CMA: 84 % vs. 88 %, adjusted OR=0.75; 95 % CI 0.57-0.99). Patients using the other two dosing regimens had significantly lower adherence compared with patients on one tablet daily using both methods.
conclusionChoice of method has an impact on the estimates of refill adherence to bisphosphonates. Patients on one tablet weekly dosing had lower adherence compared with patients on one tablet daily dosing using both methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24519263What 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.