Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27005306›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2016

A scoping review of studies comparing the medication event monitoring system (MEMS) with alternative methods for measuring medication adherence.

Mohamed El Alili, Bernard Vrijens, Jenny Demonceau, Silvia M Evers, Mickael Hiligsmann

Abstract readComparative StudyScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 98 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
98citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

98 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Osteoporosis medication adherence tools: a systematic review.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Systematic screening using FRAXOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2020
    Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Psychometric evaluation of the PROMISJournal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026
    Observational
  20. Review

38 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Mohamed El AliliDepartment of Health Services Research, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Bernard VrijensWestRock Healthcare, Visé, Belgium.
Jenny DemonceauWestRock Healthcare, Visé, Belgium.
Silvia M EversDepartment of Health Services Research, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Mickael HiligsmannDepartment of Health Services Research, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Different methods are available for measuring medication adherence. In this paper, we conducted a scoping review to identify and summarize evidence of all studies comparing the Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS) with alternative methods for measuring medication adherence. A literature search was performed using the open database www.iAdherence.org that includes all original studies reporting findings from the MEMS. Papers comparing methods for measuring adherence to solid oral formulations were included. Data was extracted using a standardized extraction table. A total of 117 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria, including 251 comparisons. Most frequent comparisons were against self-report (n = 119) and pill count (n = 59). Similar outcome measures were used in 210 comparisons (84%), among which 78 used dichotomous variables (adherent or not) and 132 used continuous measures (adherence expressed as percentage). Furthermore, 32% of all comparisons did not estimate adherence over the same coverage period and 44% of all comparisons did not use a statistical method or used a suboptimal one. Only eighty-seven (35%) comparisons had similar coverage periods, similar outcome measures and optimal statistical methods. Compared to MEMS, median adherence was grossly overestimated by 17% using self-report, by 8% using pill count and by 6% using rating. In conclusion, among all comparisons of MEMS versus alternative methods for measuring adherence, only a few used adequate comparisons in terms of outcome measures, coverage periods and statistical method. Researchers should therefore use stronger methodological frameworks when comparing measurement methods and be aware that non-electronic measures could lead to overestimation of medication adherence.

Indexed as

Drug PackagingMedication AdherenceSelf ReportData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePharmaceutical PreparationsPharmaceutical Preparationsmeasurement methodsmedication adherencemedication event monitoring systemmethodologypill countself-report

Identifiers

PMID27005306
PMCPMC4917812

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.