SynthesisPeerJ2025
Psychometric properties of instruments for assessing adherence to oral antineoplastic agents: a COSMIN systematic review.
Synthesis in PeerJ, 2025. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Oral antineoplastic therapies have increasingly become a mainstay therapy for various cancers. Selecting the most suitable instrument for assessing adherence to oral antineoplastic agents (OAAs) in cancer patients is crucial to tracking patients' medication compliance. This review is the first to identify available instruments for assessing adherence to OAAs and examine the quality of their psychometric properties. Methods: Following the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, eight electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, Weipu, and Sinomed) were systematically searched for relevant studies published from inception until December 31, 2023. The study protocol received registration with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42024546402). Results: Eight studies assessing eight identified instruments were included. Four instruments were universal to cancer patients treated with any OAA; the other four instruments were only suitable for a specific type of OAA. None of the studies explored measurement error, cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance, and responsiveness of the instruments. All the instruments failed to meet the COSMIN criteria. Eventually, seven instruments were weakly recommended for use to assess OAA adherence, and one was not recommended for assessing OAA adherence due to high-quality evidence for insufficient internal consistency. Conclusion: The selection of the most appropriate instrument to assess adherence to OAAs depends on its psychometric properties and relevance to the type of OAA. Eight identified instruments for assessing adherence to OAAs demonstrated limited reliability and validity. Further thorough validation is required for all included instruments. Instruments with rigid measurement properties are urgently needed to be developed to assess OAA adherence in cancer patients.
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.