Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28993930›Full record

SynthesisHeart failure reviews2018

In search of a standard when analyzing medication adherence in patients with heart failure using claims data: a systematic review.

Katrin Krueger, Nina Griese-Mammen, Ingrid Schubert, Marita Kieble, Lea Botermann, Ulrich Laufs, Charlotte Kloft, Martin Schulz

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Heart failure reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

8 authors.

Katrin KruegerDepartment of Medicine, ABDA - Federal Union of German Associations of Pharmacists, Unter den Linden 19-23, D-10117, Berlin, Germany.
Nina Griese-MammenDepartment of Medicine, ABDA - Federal Union of German Associations of Pharmacists, Unter den Linden 19-23, D-10117, Berlin, Germany.
Ingrid SchubertPMV Research Group at the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics, and Psychotherapy, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Marita KiebleGerman Institute for Drug Use Evaluation (DAPI), Berlin, Germany.
Lea BotermannDepartment of Medicine, ABDA - Federal Union of German Associations of Pharmacists, Unter den Linden 19-23, D-10117, Berlin, Germany.
Ulrich LaufsClinic and Polyclinic of Cardiology, University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Charlotte KloftDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Biochemistry, Institute of Pharmacy, Freie Universitaet Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Martin SchulzDepartment of Medicine, ABDA - Federal Union of German Associations of Pharmacists, Unter den Linden 19-23, D-10117, Berlin, Germany. m.schulz@fu-berlin.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To determine and address medication non-adherence is important and may improve patient outcomes. Our aim was to perform a systematic review on the operationalization of adherence measures in patients with heart failure using claims data. We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. A quality check of the full-text articles was performed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. We included 28 studies. Eleven studies used the medication possession ratio, 15 the proportion of days covered, and six studies used own methods to calculate medication adherence. Almost all studies used an observation period of 1 year. Twenty-one studies considered angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor antagonists, 17 beta-blockers, 11 diuretics, eight mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, six digitalis-glycosides, and six statins. Eight studies looked at single substance classes; 18 studies analyzed more than one drug class. Different assumptions for the dosage were used. In seven studies, switching within therapeutic classes was allowed. Three studies allowed stockpiling, nine studies censored hospital stays, and four studies censored death. Seventeen studies dichotomized the results, applying the cutoff ≥ 0.8 to define a patient as adherent. Eight studies analyzed adherence as a continuous value. The reporting quality of the methodology applied varied widely between studies. A gold standard is currently not available for the quantification of medication adherence in patients with chronic heart failure via claims data. To assess the methodology, the following parameters should be described: method of measurements, observation period, substances, dosing, switches, stockpiling, truncations, statistical analysis, and cutoff for adherence.

Indexed as

Medication AdherenceCardiovascular AgentsDatabases, FactualHeart FailureHumansCardiovascular AgentsChronic heart failureClaims dataMedication adherenceMedication possession ratioMethodologyProportion of days covered

Identifiers

PMID28993930

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.