ArticleThe journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAG2024
Determining Adherence to Inhaled Corticosteroids From the Epic Electronic Medical Record.
Article in The journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAG, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOften we call the patient's pharmacy to obtain a refill history to assess inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) adherence. The purpose of this project was to determine the accuracy of refill histories for ICS (with or without long-acting beta agonist) listed in Epic's Medication Dispense History.
methodsWe evaluated 61 patients and used data from 38 who met the following criteria: 1) under the care of the UF Pediatric Severe Asthma Clinic; 2) taking the same dose of the same ICS product for 6 months before the patient's last clinic visit; and 3) having data available from the pharmacy where the last ICS prescription was electronically sent. We called the pharmacies to obtain a verbal report of their refill record. Then, we compared the number of refills reported to the number listed in Epic's records using a Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test.
resultsOf the 293 refill dates listed in Epic, 157 were duplicates, giving a 54% error. After deleting duplicates, the mean (SD) number of refills listed in Epic was 3.6 (2.0) compared with 3.3 (2.0) in pharmacies over a period of 6 months (p < 0.0001). After removing duplicates Epic correctly reported the total number of refills for 30 of the 38 patients (78.9%). Seven of the remaining patients had more refills listed in Epic while 1 patient had more refills dispensed.
conclusionThis study indicates that our version of Epic over-reports refills thus limiting assessment of adherence. In contrast, absence of refills in Epic is a clear indication of poor adherence.
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.