Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24888355›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2014

Cardiovascular medication utilization and adherence among adults living in rural and urban areas: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Gaetanne K Murphy, Finlay A McAlister, Daniala L Weir, Lisa Tjosvold, Dean T Eurich

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Rural-Urban Differences in Chronic Disease and Drug Utilization in Older Oregonians.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2016
    Article
  16. Primary non-adherence in Portugal: findings and implications.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2015
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Gaetanne K Murphy
Finlay A McAlister
Daniala L Weir
Lisa Tjosvold
Dean T Eurich2-040 Li Ka Shing Center for Health Research Innovation, School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E1, Canada. deurich@ualberta.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRural residents face numerous barriers to healthcare access and studies suggest poorer health outcomes for rural patients. Therefore we undertook a systematic review to determine if cardiovascular medication utilization and adherence patterns differ for rural versus urban patients.

methodsA comprehensive search of major electronic datasets was undertaken for controlled clinical trials and observational studies comparing utilization or adherence to cardiovascular medications in rural versus urban adults with cardiovascular disease or diabetes. Two reviewers independently identified citations, extracted data, and evaluated quality using the STROBE checklist. Risk estimates were abstracted and pooled where appropriate using random effects models. Methods and reporting were in accordance with MOOSE guidelines.

resultsFifty-one studies were included of fair to good quality (median STROBE score 17.5). Although pooled unadjusted analyses suggested that patients in rural areas were less likely to receive evidence-based cardiovascular medications (23 studies, OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79, 0.98), pooled data from 21 studies adjusted for potential confounders indicated no rural-urban differences (adjusted OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.91, 1.13). The high heterogeneity observed (I(2) = 97%) was partially explained by treatment setting (hospital, ambulatory care, or community-based sample), age, and disease. Adherence did not differ between urban versus rural patients (3 studies, OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.39, 2.27, I(2) = 91%).

conclusionsWe found no consistent differences in rates of cardiovascular medication utilization or adherence among adults with cardiovascular disease or diabetes living in rural versus urban settings. Higher quality evidence is needed to determine if differences truly exist between urban and rural patients in the use of, and adherence to, evidence-based medications.

Indexed as

Patient ComplianceAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaCanadaCardiovascular AgentsCardiovascular DiseasesDatabases, FactualDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2EuropeFemaleHumansMiddle AgedRisk FactorsRural PopulationCardiovascular Agents

Identifiers

PMID24888355
PMCPMC4064809

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.