ReviewPatient preference and adherence2025
Electronic Monitoring of Medication Adherence to Direct Oral Anticoagulants: A Systematic Review.
Review in Patient preference and adherence, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Strict medication adherence, which reflects the process by which patients take their medication as prescribed, is crucial for the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Therefore, technological devices may serve as promising tools for assessing adherence. We aimed to systematically review the literature focusing on electronically monitored adherence (EMA) to DOACs. All studies indexed in EMBASE, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception until September 1, 2023, were searched. Original studies targeting the query topics were included, findings were categorized and narratively synthetized. Adherence data, including the quality of data reporting bias, were evaluated using the EMERGE guideline. The review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (ID CRD42023441161). Out of the 5911 potential hits, 19 articles, comprising 15 research studies, were identified. These studies enrolled 4163 patients (median 72.1 years; 57.9% males), usually chronically treated with DOACs for atrial fibrillation. EMA was measured in 3451 patients by seven different devices from eight manufacturers; the median population tracked with electronic monitoring was 56 patients over 5 months per study. Observational studies resulted in 88.6% and interventional studies resulted in 92.5% of EMA to DOACs, mostly monitoring regimen and taking adherence. Two studies reported high-quality adherence data, whereas 11 reported low-quality adherence data. The item described in the EMERGE guideline as affecting adherence by measurement method, as appropriate, has rarely been addressed. This review broadens the understanding of the overall high EMA to DOACs reported across various study populations and designs. Furthermore, due to the identified gaps in current literature, it highlights the pressing need for standardized methodologies and improved adherence reporting. This study was supported by the GAUK 328322 and SVV 220665.
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.