ReviewBMJ clinical evidence2015
Cardiovascular medication: improving adherence using prompting mechanisms.
Review in BMJ clinical evidence, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Real-time single-frequency GPS/MEMS-IMU attitude determination of lightweight UAVs.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAdherence to medication is generally defined as the extent to which people take medications as prescribed by their healthcare providers. It can be assessed in many ways (e.g., by self-reporting, pill counting, direct observation, electronic monitoring, or by pharmacy records). This overview reports effects of prompting mechanisms on adherence to cardiovascular medications, however adherence has been measured. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic overview, aiming to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of prompting mechanisms to improve adherence to long-term medication for cardiovascular disease in adults? We searched Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2014 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review).
resultsAt this update, searching of electronic databases retrieved 174 studies. After deduplication and removal of conference abstracts, 80 records were screened for inclusion in the overview. Appraisal of titles and abstracts led to the exclusion of 45 studies and the further review of 35 full publications. Of the 35 full articles evaluated, one RCT was added at this update. We performed a GRADE evaluation of seven PICO combinations.
conclusionsIn this systematic overview, we categorised the efficacy for seven comparisons based on information relating to the effectiveness and safety of prompting mechanisms, alone and in combination with reminder packaging or patient education.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26389860PMC4577014What 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.