ArticlePloS one2017
Adherence to secondary prophylaxis for rheumatic heart disease is underestimated by register data.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Improving Delivery of Secondary Prophylaxis for Rheumatic Heart Disease in a High-Burden Setting: Outcome of a Stepped-Wedge, Community, Randomized Trial.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2018Trial
- Adherence rates and risk factors for suboptimal adherence to secondary prophylaxis for rheumatic fever.Journal of paediatrics and child health · 2021Article
- Rheumatic Heart Disease Patients' Adherence to Secondary Prophylaxis and Associated Factors at Hospitals in Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia: A Multicenter Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2020Article
- Adherence to Benzathine Penicillin G Secondary Prophylaxis and Its Determinants in Patients with Rheumatic Heart Disease at a Cardiac Center of an Ethiopian Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital.Patient preference and adherence · 2020Article
- Throat Colonization and Antibiotic Susceptibility of Group a β-Hemolytic Streptococci Among Rheumatic Heart Disease Patients Attending a Cardiac Referral Hospital in Tanzania, a Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study.Frontiers in surgery · 2020Article
- Adherence to Secondary Prophylaxis Among Patients with Acute Rheumatic Fever and Rheumatic Heart Disease.Current cardiology reviews · 2019Article
- The End Rheumatic Heart Disease in Australia Study of Epidemiology (ERASE) Project: data sources, case ascertainment and cohort profile.Clinical epidemiology · 2019Article
- How Many Doses Make a Difference? An Analysis of Secondary Prevention of Rheumatic Fever and Rheumatic Heart Disease.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2018Article
- Rheumatic Heart Disease Prophylaxis in Older Patients: A Register-Based Audit of Adherence to Guidelines.Open forum infectious diseases · 2018Article
- Rheumatic Heart Disease Treatment Cascade in Uganda.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn high-burden Australian states and territories, registers of patients with acute rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease are maintained for patient management, monitoring of system performance and research. Data validation was undertaken for the Australian Northern Territory Rheumatic Heart Disease Register to determine quality and impact of data cleaning on reporting against key performance indicators: overall adherence, and proportion of patients receiving ≥80% of scheduled penicillin doses for secondary prophylaxis.
methodsRegister data were compared with data from health centres. Inconsistencies were identified and corrected; adherence was calculated before and after cleaning.
results2780 penicillin doses were validated; 426 inconsistencies were identified, including 102 incorrect dose dates. After cleaning, mean adherence increased (63.5% to 67.3%, p<0.001) and proportion of patients receiving ≥80% of doses increased (34.2% to 42.1%, p = 0.06).
conclusionsThe Northern Territory Rheumatic Heart Disease Register underestimates adherence, although the key performance indicator of ≥80% adherence was not significantly affected. Program performance is better than hitherto appreciated. However some errors could affect patient management, as well as accuracy of longitudinal or inter-jurisdictional comparisons. Adequate resources are needed for maintenance of data quality in acute rheumatic fever/rheumatic heart disease registers to ensure provision of evidence-based care and accurate assessment of program impact.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.