Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28895104›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics2018

Concordance of Adherence Measurement Using Self-Reported Adherence Questionnaires and Medication Monitoring Devices: An Updated Review.

Alisha Monnette, Yichen Zhang, Hui Shao, Lizheng Shi

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing 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

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

  1. Interventions for improving adherence to amblyopia treatments in children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. 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
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Review
  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

4 authors.

Alisha MonnetteDepartment of Global Health Management and Policy, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA, 70112, USA.
Yichen ZhangDepartment of Global Health Management and Policy, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA, 70112, USA.
Hui ShaoDepartment of Global Health Management and Policy, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA, 70112, USA.
Lizheng ShiDepartment of Global Health Management and Policy, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA, 70112, USA. lshi1@tulane.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAs medication adherence continues to be a prevalent issue in today's society, the methods used to monitor medication-taking behaviors are constantly being re-evaluated and compared in search of the 'gold standard' measure. Our review aimed to assess the current literature surrounding the correlation between self-reported questionnaires (SRQs) and electronic monitoring devices to determine if these measures produce similar results.

methodsWe performed a literature search from 2009 to 2017 using PubMed, PubMed In-Process and Non-Indexed, EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, and Ovid MEDLINE In-Process. A keyword search using the terms 'patient compliance', 'treatment compliance', 'medication adherence', 'drug monitoring', 'drug therapy', 'electronic', 'digital', 'computer', 'monitor', 'monitoring', 'drug', 'pharmaceutical preparations', 'compliance', and 'medications' was done to capture all articles. We included articles measuring adherence using both monitoring devices and SRQs.

resultsThirty-five articles were included in this review. The average difference in measured adherence rates between the two measures was 9.2% (range -66.3 to 61.5). A majority (62.7%) of articles reported moderate (n = 12; 27.9%), high (n = 5, 11.6%), or significant (n = 10, 23.3%) correlations between SRQs and monitoring devices.

conclusionResults from our review are consistent with previous studies, as we found that many of our studies produced moderate to high correlation between both SRQs and monitoring devices [Farmer, Clin Ther 21(6):1074-90 (1999), IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics. Avoidable costs in US health care (2012), Patel et al., Respirology 18(3):546-52 (2013), Siracusa et al., J Cyst Fibros 14(5):621-6 (2015), Smith et al., Int J Cardiol 145(1):122-3 (2010)]. Our findings demonstrate that self-reported adherence produces comparable results to electronic monitoring devices. As there is not yet a 'gold standard' measure for monitoring patient adherence, SRQs and Medication Event Monitoring Systems (MEMS) operating together continue to emerge as the preferred effective method for measuring medication adherence.

Indexed as

Medication AdherenceSurveys and QuestionnairesDrug MonitoringEquipment DesignHumansPharmaceutical PreparationsSelf ReportPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

PMID28895104

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.