SynthesisBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2018
Patient-reported outcome instruments that evaluate adherence behaviours in adults with asthma: a systematic review of measurement properties.
Synthesis in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Measurement Properties of Existing Patient-Reported Outcome Measures on Medication Adherence: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Pooled it
- Patient-reported outcome instruments that evaluate adherence behaviours in adults with asthma: a systematic review of measurement properties.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2018Pooled it
- Innovative Approaches to Enhance and Measure Medication Adherence in Chronic Disease Management: A Review.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024Review
- Qualitative Interviews to Support Development and Cognitive Debriefing of the Adelphi Adherence Questionnaire (ADAQ©): A Patient-Reported Measure of Medication Adherence Developed for Use in a Range of Diseases, Treatment Modalities, and Countries.Patient preference and adherence · 2022Article
- Measuring adherence to therapy in airways disease.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2021Review
- Validation of the Chinese Non-pharmacological Therapy Experience Scale in persons with intellectual disability.Nursing open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimThe aim of the present study was to identify systematically the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome instruments (PROs) that evaluate adherence to inhaled maintenance medication in adults with asthma.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review of six databases. Two reviewers independently included studies on the measurement properties of PROs that evaluated adherence in asthmatic participants aged ≥18 years. Based on the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN), the reviewers: (i) extracted data on internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, content validity, structural validity, hypotheses testing, cross-cultural validity, criterion validity and responsiveness; (ii) assessed the methodological quality of the included studies; (iii) assessed the quality of the measurement properties (positive or negative); and (iv) summarized the level of evidence (limited, moderate or strong).
resultsWe screened 6068 records and included 15 studies (14 PROs). No studies evaluated measurement error or responsiveness. Based on methodological and measurement property quality assessments, we found limited positive evidence of: (i) internal consistency of the Adherence Questionnaire, Refined Medication Adherence Reason (MAR) scale, Medication Adherence Report Scale for Asthma (MARS-A) and Test of the Adherence to Inhalers (TAI); (ii) reliability of the TAI; and (iii) structural validity of the adherence questionnaire, MAR scale, MARS-A and TAI. We also found limited negative evidence of: (i) hypotheses testing of the Adherence Questionnaire; (ii) reliability of the MARS-A; and (iii) criterion validity of the MARS-A and TAI.
conclusionsOur results highlighted the need to conduct further high-quality studies to evaluate the reliability, validity and responsiveness of the available PROs.
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.