Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33643600›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic advances in chronic disease2021

Optimal cut-off points for adherence measure among patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care clinics: a retrospective analysis.

Ming Tsuey Lim, Norazida Ab Rahman, Xin Rou Teh, Chee Lee Chan, Shantini Thevendran, Najwa Ahmad Hamdi, Ka Keat Lim, Sheamini Sivasampu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic advances in chronic disease, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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.

Ming Tsuey LimInstitute for Clinical Research, National Institutes of Health, Ministry of Health, Malaysia.
Norazida Ab RahmanInstitute for Clinical Research, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Ministry of Health Malaysia, Block B4, No. 1, Jalan Setia Murni U13/52, Shah Alam, Selangor, 40170, Malaysia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6439-2005
Xin Rou TehInstitute for Clinical Research, National Institutes of Health, Ministry of Health, Malaysia.
Chee Lee ChanInstitute for Clinical Research, National Institutes of Health, Ministry of Health, Malaysia.
Shantini ThevendranPublic Health Development Division, Ministry of Health, Malaysia.
Najwa Ahmad HamdiPublic Health Development Division, Ministry of Health, Malaysia.
Ka Keat LimInstitute for Clinical Research, National Institutes of Health, Ministry of Health, Malaysia.
Sheamini SivasampuInstitute for Clinical Research, National Institutes of Health, Ministry of Health, Malaysia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedication adherence measures are often dichotomized to classify patients into those with good or poor adherence using a cut-off value ⩾80%, but this cut-off may not be universal across diseases or medication classes. This study aimed to examine the cut-off value that optimally distinguish good and poor adherence by using the medication possession ratio (MPR) and proportion of days covered (PDC) as adherence measures and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as outcome measure among type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients.

methodWe used pharmacy dispensing data of 1461 eligible T2DM patients from public primary care clinics in Malaysia treated with oral antidiabetic drugs between January 2018 and May 2019. Adherence rates were calculated during the period preceding the HbA1c measurement. Adherence cut-off values for the following conditions were compared: adherence measure (MPR

resultsThe optimal adherence cut-offs for MPR and PDC in predicting HbA1c ⩽7.0% ranged between 86.1% and 98.3% across the two assessment periods. In predicting HbA1c ⩽8.0%, the optimal adherence cut-offs ranged from 86.1% to 92.8%. The cut-off value was notably higher with PDC as the adherence measure, shorter assessment period, and a stricter HbA1c target (⩽7.0%) as outcome.

conclusionWe found that optimal adherence cut-off appeared to be slightly higher than the conventional value of 80%. The adherence thresholds may vary depending on the length of assessment period and outcome definition but a reasonably wise cut-off to distinguish good

Indexed as

adherence measurediabetesglycated hemoglobinmedication adherenceoptimal cut-off

Identifiers

PMID33643600
PMCPMC7894582

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.