ArticlePharmacoEconomics2018
Sensitivity of the Medication Possession Ratio to Modelling Decisions in Large Claims Databases.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Methods to assess COPD medications adherence in healthcare databases: a systematic review.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The protective effects of insulin on the developing of dementia in chronic kidney disease patients with hypertension and diabetes: a population-based nationwide study.BMC nephrology · 2025Article
- Article
- Adherence and Persistence to Medical Therapy in Glaucoma: An Overview.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2023Review
- Estimating medication adherence from Electronic Health Records: comparing methods for mining and processing asthma treatment prescriptions.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- A comparison of methods for the measurement of adherence to antihypertensive multidrug therapy and the clinical consequences: a retrospective cohort study using the Korean nationwide claims database.Epidemiology and health · 2023Article
- Laboratory testing and antihypertensive medication adherence following initial treatment of incident, uncomplicated hypertension: A real-world data analysis.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2022Article
- Protective Effects of Angiotensin Receptor Blockers on the Incidence of Dementia in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: A Population-Based Nationwide Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Self-reported vs. objectively assessed adherence to inhaled corticosteroids in asthma.Asthma research and practice · 2021Article
- Comparing the Sensitivities of Measures of Adherence to Antihypertensive Drugs Using Korean National Health Insurance Claims Data.Patient preference and adherence · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWhen preparing administrative medical and pharmacy claims data for analysis, decisions about data clean up and analytical approach need to be made. However, information about the effects of various modelling decisions on adherence measures such as the medication possession ratio (MPR) is limited. We address this gap with this study.
methodsWe utilized cross-sectional administrative claims data for commercially insured members filling at least two prescriptions for drugs within five classes of hypertension medication between 2008 and 2010. We divided nine modelling decisions into three categories: data scrubbing, study design, and MPR definition/calculations. We defined the base-case settings with commonly used values, varied each modelling decision singly and in combination, and measured the effects on the MPR.
resultsClaims data for 358,418 individuals were available for analysis. Two modelling decisions were found to be highly influential, each yielding a difference of over 25 percentage points from the base case: the decision of whether to use interval- or prescription-based study periods, and the decision of how to handle overlapping prescription claims. The effect of other decisions was smaller, with a difference of 1-9 percentage points from the base case.
conclusionsSome of the decisions considered had a large impact on the MPR. Therefore, it is important for researchers to standardize approaches for study period length and overlapping prescription claims. We also conclude that transparent reporting of modelling decisions will facilitate the interpretation of results and comparisons across studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29230712What 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.