SynthesisBMJ open2024
Adherence to secondary antibiotic prophylaxis among patients with acute rheumatic fever and/or rheumatic heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Effect of Secondary Prophylaxis Adherence on Rheumatic Heart Disease and Determinants of Poor Adherence in Children: A 10-Year Retrospective Cohort Study.Pediatric cardiology · 2026Article
- Community-informed trial design and implementation to optimize recruitment and retention in low-income settings: lessons from rheumatic heart disease trials in Uganda.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Scoping review of variation in clinical guidelines for delivery of injectable long-acting penicillin across Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand.The Medical journal of Australia · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWorldwide, a number of studies have been conducted to assess the prevalence of adherence to secondary antibiotic prophylaxis and to identify the associated factors (reasons) for poor adherence among patients with rheumatic heart disease or acute rheumatic fever (RHD/ARF). However, results were highly inconsistent with a prevalence ranging from 10% to 93%; and the reported reasons or associated factors have not been systematically reviewed. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the prevalence of adherence to secondary antibiotic prophylaxis among patients with RHD/ARF; and to review the associated factors (reasons) for poor adherence.
designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed/Medline, Google Scholar, Cochrane Review and African Journals Online databases. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Articles published in English from 1 January 2005 to 1 December 2022 and reported the prevalence of adherence using ≥80% cut-off points were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted using the Microsoft Excel and analysed by STATA V.11.0. A meta-analysis was conducted using the weighted inverse-variance random-effects model. Reasons for poor adherence were identified through thematic analysis.
results33 articles with a total sample size of 7158 patients were included. The pooled prevalence of adherence to secondary antibiotic prophylaxis among patients with RHD/ARF was found to be 58.5% (95% CI: 48.2% to 68.7%; I
conclusionAbout 41.5% of patients with RHD/ARF were found to have poor adherence. Long distance from health institutions, forgetting schedules, poor counselling and lack of knowledge and skill among healthcare workers were some of the modifiable reasons for poor adherence. Therefore, decentralisation of the follow-up care, creating schedule reminding systems and providing targeted health education might help to improve 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.