Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32234021›Full record

Observational studyBMC nephrology2020

Accuracy and concordance of measurement methods to assess non-adherence after renal transplantation - a prospective study.

Marietta Lieb, Tobias Hepp, Mario Schiffer, Mirian Opgenoorth, Yesim Erim

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC nephrology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Post-lung transplant surveillance in 2026: current practice, variability, and the need for standardization.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Electronic health record-enabled routine assessment of medication adherence after solid organ transplantation: the time is now.American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marietta LiebDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), University Hospital of Erlangen, Schwabachanlage 6, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. Marietta.Lieb@uk-erlangen.de.
Tobias HeppInstitute of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.
Mario SchifferDepartment of Nephrology and Hypertension, University Hospital of Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
Mirian OpgenoorthDepartment of Nephrology and Hypertension, University Hospital of Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
Yesim ErimDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), University Hospital of Erlangen, Schwabachanlage 6, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · DEUniversitätsklinikum Erlangen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNon-adherence (NA) to immunosuppressants (IS) among renal transplant recipients (RTRs) is associated with higher risk of allograft rejection, graft loss, and mortality. A precise measurement of NA is indispensable, although its prevalence differs greatly depending on the respective measurement methods. The objective of this study was to assess the accuracy and concordance of different measurement methods of NA in patients after renal transplantation. DESIGN AND

methodsThis was a single-center prospective observational study. At baseline (T0), NA was measured via physicians' estimates (PE), self-reports (SR), and tacrolimus trough level variability (CV%) in 78 RTRs. A Visual Analogue Scale (VAS, 0-100%) was applied both for SR and PE. In addition, we used BAASIS© for SR and a 5-point Likert scale for PE. NA was measured prospectively via electronic monitoring (EM, VAICA©) during a three month period. Meanwhile, all participants received phone calls in a two week interval (T1-T6) during which SRs were given.

resultsSeventy-eight RTRs participated in our study. At t0, NA rates of 6.4%, 28.6%, and 15.4% were found for PE, SR, and CV%, respectively. No correlation was found between these methods. During the study, the percentages of self-reported and electronically monitored adherence remained high, with a minimum mean of 91.2% for the strictest adherence measure (Timing Adherence ±30 min). Our results revealed a moderate to high association between SR and EM. In contrast to PE and CV%, SR significantly predicted electronically monitored adherence. Overall, a decreasing effect of electronically monitored adherence was found for both taking and timing adherence (±2 h, ±30 min) over the course of the study. DISCUSSION: The moderate to high concordance of SR and EM suggests that both methods measure NA equally accurately. SR seems to be a method that can adequately depict electronically monitored NA and may represent a good and economical instrument to assess NA in clinical practice. The increased adherence at the beginning of the study and its subsequent decrease suggests an intervention effect. Surveillance of IS intake via EM with intermittent phone calls could improve adherence on a short-term basis. To establish long-term effects, further research is necessary.

Indexed as

Drug MonitoringMedication AdherenceTacrolimusAdultData AccuracyDigital TechnologyFemaleGraft RejectionHumansImmunosuppressive AgentsKidney TransplantationMalePrevalenceProspective StudiesSelf ReportTransplant RecipientsImmunosuppressive AgentsTacrolimusAccuracyAdherenceElectronic monitoringIS trough level variabilityMeasurement methodsPhysicians’ estimatesProspective studyRenal transplant recipientsSelf-report

Identifiers

PMID32234021
PMCPMC7110822
OpenAlexW3014972808

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.