Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31556829›Full record

ArticleJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2019

Navigating the Wild West of Medication Adherence Reporting in Specialty Pharmacy.

Scott L Canfield, Autumn Zuckerman, Rebekah H Anguiano, Jacob A Jolly, Josh DeClercq, Molly Wascher, Leena Choi, Stacy Knox, David G Mitchell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

86 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Trial emulation of percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion versus direct oral anticoagulants.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article

26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Scott L CanfieldJohns Hopkins Home Care Group, Baltimore, Maryland.
Autumn ZuckermanDepartment of Pharmacy, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Rebekah H AnguianoDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, University of Illinois at Chicago College of Pharmacy, Chicago, Illinois.
Jacob A JollyDepartment of Pharmacy, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Josh DeClercqDepartment of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Molly WascherJohns Hopkins Home Care Group, Baltimore, Maryland.
Leena ChoiDepartment of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Stacy KnoxDepartment of Pharmacy Services, UC Davis Health, Sacramento, California.
David G MitchellDepartment of Pharmacy Services, UC Davis Health, Sacramento, California.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Estimating medication adherence through the use of pharmacy claims-based adherence calculations such as medication possession ratio (MPR) and proportion of days covered (PDC) plays a significant role in specialty pharmacy practice. Although MPR and PDC are frequently used in clinical practice, calculation methodologies vary, making meaningful comparisons of adherence rates difficult. In addition, MPR and PDC are increasingly used by insurance companies, pharmacies, accrediting bodies, and drug manufacturers to demonstrate quality differences or clinical benefit across the specialty pharmacy industry. Therefore, recognizing the source and effect of calculation variability is necessary to fully understand reported adherence results. This article highlights the challenges in standardizing adherence methodologies, minimum methodology considerations that should be reported with MPR and PDC results, and key elements to consider when interpreting and applying adherence results. Further, recommendations are provided to promote a more consistent description of calculation methods and to aid pharmacies in adherence measure analysis, interpretation, and application to practice, with a focus on specialty pharmacy programs. A detailed description of methodology as outlined in this article must be provided to ensure reproducibility, external validation, and scientific rigor. In the absence of standardization, specialty pharmacies should be prudent in their use of adherence calculations as a clinical benchmarking tool or comparative quality indicator with outside organizations. Furthermore, specialty pharmacies should consider using current adherence measure calculations to identify and provide targeted interventions to patients with potential adherence problems and strive to better demonstrate ties between adherence measures and direct clinical and cost outcomes. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported the writing of this article. Anguiano is a speaker and research consultant for United Therapeutics. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

Indexed as

Drug MonitoringBenchmarkingPharmaceutical ServicesPharmaciesQuality Indicators, Health CareReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID31556829
PMCPMC10397888

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.