Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30233252›Full record

ArticleClinical epidemiology2018

Operationalization and validation of a novel method to calculate adherence to polypharmacy with refill data from the Australian pharmaceutical benefits scheme (PBS) database.

Isabelle Arnet, Melanie Greenland, Matthew W Knuiman, Jamie M Rankin, Joe Hung, Lee Nedkoff, Tom G Briffa, Frank M Sanfilippo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Breast cancer, placing drug interactions in the spotlight: is polypharmacy the cause of everything?Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. 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.

Isabelle ArnetDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Pharmaceutical Care Research Group, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Melanie GreenlandSchool of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia, frank.sanfilippo@uwa.edu.au.
Matthew W KnuimanSchool of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia, frank.sanfilippo@uwa.edu.au.
Jamie M RankinCardiology Department, Fiona Stanley Hospital Murdoch, WA, Australia.
Joe HungSchool of Medicine, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital Unit, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.
Lee NedkoffSchool of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia, frank.sanfilippo@uwa.edu.au.
Tom G BriffaSchool of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia, frank.sanfilippo@uwa.edu.au.
Frank M SanfilippoSchool of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia, frank.sanfilippo@uwa.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectronic health care data contain rich information on medicine use from which adherence can be estimated. Various measures developed with medication claims data called for transparency of the equations used, predominantly because they may overestimate adherence, and even more when used with multiple medications. We aimed to operationalize a novel calculation of adherence with polypharmacy, the daily polypharmacy possession ratio (DPPR), and validate it against the common measure of adherence, the medication possession ratio (MPR) and a modified version (MPR

methodsWe used linked health data from the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and Western Australian hospital morbidity dataset and mortality register. We identified a strict study cohort from 16,185 patients aged ≥65 years hospitalized for myocardial infarction in 2003-2008 in Western Australia as an illustrative example. We applied iterative exclusion criteria to standardize the dispensing histories according to previous literature. A SAS program was developed to calculate the adherence measures accounting for various drug parameters.

resultsThe study cohort was 348 incident patients (mean age 74.6±6.8 years; 69% male) with an admission for myocardial infarction who had cardiovascular medications over a median of 727 days (range 74 to 3,798 days) prior to readmission. There were statins (96.8%), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (88.8%), beta-blockers (85.6%), and angiotensin receptor blockers (13.2%) dispensed. As expected, observed adherence values were higher with mean MPR (median 89.2%; Q

conclusionIn the absence of transparent and standardized equations to calculate adherence to polypharmacy from refill databases, the novel DPPR algorithm represents a valid and robust method to estimate medication possession for multi-medication regimens.

Indexed as

administrative dataalgorithmclaims databaseDPPRmedication adherencemedication possession ratio

Identifiers

PMID30233252
PMCPMC6132235

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.