Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38841377›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2024

Is it possible to diagnose therapeutic adherence in mild cognitive impairment and dementia patients in clinical practice?

Pilar Barnestein-Fonseca, Gloria Guerrero-Pertiñez, Jose Gúzman-Parra, Esperanza Valera-Moreno, Fermín Mayoral-Cleries

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03325699 (Support Monitoring and Reminder Technology for Mild Dementia), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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.

NCT03325699 naunknown statusnot on this map

Support Monitoring and Reminder Technology for Mild Dementia

TypeinterventionalSponsorJohan Sanmartin BerglundRan2016 to 2019Enrolled1,200ConditionsMild Dementia, Cognitive Impairment, MildArmsSMART4MD Health Application
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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.

Pilar Barnestein-FonsecaResearch Unit, Instituto CUDECA de Estudios e Investigación en Cuidados Paliativos, Fundación CUDECA, Málaga, Spain.
Gloria Guerrero-PertiñezInstituto IBIMA-Plataforma Bionand, Málaga, Spain.
Jose Gúzman-ParraInstituto IBIMA-Plataforma Bionand, Málaga, Spain.
Esperanza Valera-MorenoInstituto IBIMA-Plataforma Bionand, Málaga, Spain.
Fermín Mayoral-CleriesInstituto IBIMA-Plataforma Bionand, Málaga, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Non-adherence is common and contributes to adverse health outcomes, reduced quality of life, and increased healthcare expenditure. The objective of this study was to assess the diagnostic validity to estimate the prevalence of non-adherence in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia using two self-reported methods (SRMs) that are useful and easy in clinical practice, considering the pill count as a reference method (RM). Methods: The cohort study was nested in a multicenter randomized controlled trial NCT03325699. A total of 387 patients from 8 health centers were selected using a non-probabilistic consecutive sampling method. Inclusion criteria were as follows: a score of 20-28 points on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE); older than 55 years; taking prescribed medication; and are in charge of their own medication use. Participants were followed up for 18 months after the baseline visit, i.e., 6, 12, and 18 months. Variables related with treatment adherences were measured in all visits. The variables included age, sex, treatment, comorbidities, and the MMSE test. Adherences included pill counts and Morisky-Green test (MGT) and Batalla test (BT) as SRMs. Statistical analysis included descriptive analysis and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The diagnostic validity included the following: 1) open comparison statistical association between SRMs and RMs and 2) hierarchy comparison: the RM as the best method to assess non-adherence, kappa value (k), sensitivity (S), specificity (Sp), and likelihood ratio (PPV/PPN). Results: A total of 387 patients were recruited with an average age of 73.29 years (95% CI, 72.54-74.04), of which 59.5% were female. Comorbidities were 54.4% HTA, 35.9% osteoarticular pathology, and 24.5% DM. The MMSE mean score was 25.57 (95% CI, 25.34-25.8). The treatment adherence for the RM oscillates between 22.5% in the baseline and 26.3%, 14.8%, and 17.9% in the follow-up visits. For SRMs, the treatment adherence oscillates between 43.5% in the baseline and 32.4%, 21.9%, and 20.3% in the follow-up visits. The kappa value was statistically significant in all the comparison in all visits with a score between 0.16 and 035. Regarding the diagnostic validity, for the MGT, the sensibility oscillated between 0.4 and 0.58, and the specificity oscillated between 0.68 and 0.87; for the BT, the sensibility oscillated between 0.4 and 0.7, and the specificity oscillated between 0.66 and 0.9; and when both tests were used together, the sensibility oscillated between 0.22 and 0.4, and the specificity oscillated between 0.85 and 0.96. Conclusion: SRMs classify non-adherent subjects correctly. They are very easy to use and yield quick results in clinical practice, so SRMs would be used for the non-adherence diagnosis in patients with MCI and mild dementia.

Indexed as

adherence indirect testcognitive impairmentmild dementiaself-reported methodstreatment adherence

Identifiers

PMID38841377
PMCPMC11151088

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.