Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29033555›Full record

ReviewPatient preference and adherence2017

Treatment adherence in hemophilia.

Courtney D Thornburg, Natalie A Duncan

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Patient preference and adherence, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 101 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
101citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

101 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 188 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Systematic Literature Review of Outcomes Associated With Adherence to Haemophilia Drug Therapy.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Observational

41 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Courtney D ThornburgHemophilia and Thrombosis Treatment Center, Rady Children's Hospital, San Diego, CA.
Natalie A DuncanIndiana Hemophilia and Thrombosis Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Indiana Hemophilia and Thrombosis Center · USRady Children's Hospital-San Diego · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prophylactic clotting-factor regimens reduce the occurrence of bleeding episodes and maintain joint health in individuals with moderate and severe hemophilia. However, these outcomes are only achieved with adherence to prescribed prophylaxis regimens. There are several types of barriers to adherence related to key patient, condition, treatment, health-care system, and/or socioeconomic variables. Notably, health-care professionals may not prescribe prophylaxis if they perceive that a patient will be nonadherent. Prophylactic treatment strategies should be developed with the patient and family, focused on individualized treatment goals. Personalized strategies are needed to reinforce the importance of and encourage confidence in administering the regular infusions required for prophylactic therapy. These strategies may include verbal and written information delivered by health-care professionals, peers, and inter-active media. The advent of extended half-life clotting factors requiring less frequent infusion may improve adherence.

Indexed as

adherencehemophiliaprophylaxisVERITAS-Pro

Identifiers

PMID29033555
PMCPMC5630068
OpenAlexW2760631163

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.