Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25879372›Full record

ArticleHealth services research2016

Observing versus Predicting: Initial Patterns of Filling Predict Long-Term Adherence More Accurately Than High-Dimensional Modeling Techniques.

Jessica M Franklin, William H Shrank, Joyce Lii, Alexis K Krumme, Olga S Matlin, Troyen A Brennan, Niteesh K Choudhry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health services research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

7 authors.

Jessica M FranklinDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8941-4116
William H ShrankCVS Caremark, Woonsocket, RI.
Joyce LiiDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Alexis K KrummeDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Olga S MatlinCVS Caremark, Woonsocket, RI.
Troyen A BrennanCVS Caremark, Woonsocket, RI.
Niteesh K ChoudhryDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDespite the proliferation of databases with increasingly rich patient data, prediction of medication adherence remains poor. We proposed and evaluated approaches for improved adherence prediction. DATA SOURCES: We identified Medicare beneficiaries who received prescription drug coverage through CVS Caremark and initiated a statin. STUDY

designA total of 643 variables were identified at baseline from prior claims and linked Census data. In addition, we identified three postbaseline predictors, indicators of adherence to statins during each of the first 3 months of follow-up. We estimated 10 models predicting subsequent adherence, using logistic regression and boosted logistic regression, a nonparametric data-mining technique. Models were also estimated within strata defined by the index days supply.

resultsIn 77,703 statin initiators, prediction using baseline variables only was poor with maximum cross-validated C-statistics of 0.606 and 0.577 among patients with index supply ≤30 days and >30 days, respectively. Using only indicators of initial statin adherence improved prediction accuracy substantially among patients with shorter initial dispensings (C = 0.827/0.518), and, when combined with investigator-specified variables, prediction accuracy was further improved (C = 0.842/0.596).

conclusionsObserved adherence immediately after initiation predicted future adherence for patients whose initial dispensings were relatively short.

Indexed as

Drug MonitoringModels, StatisticalAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsCognition DisordersFemaleHealth StatusHumansHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsInsurance Claim ReviewMaleMedicarePolypharmacyPropensity ScoreReproducibility of ResultsHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsAdherenceboostingcomparative effectivenessepidemiologic methodsprediction

Identifiers

PMID25879372
PMCPMC4722199

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.