Trial reportEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2026
Medication adherence in breast cancer: a comparative analysis of self-report tools and prescription refill data.
Trial report in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAdherence to oral anticancer medications (OAMs) is critical for clinical outcomes in breast cancer (BC), yet assessment methods lack standardization. The goal is to evaluate OAMs adherence in BC patients utilizing the most common adherence assessment methods on the same population, as well as to test the feasibility and concordance of these methods when used separately or in combination.
methods500 BC patients on OAMs at the National Cancer Institute, Cairo, were randomized into a two-period crossover study evaluating self-report tools (Arm A: Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8) and the Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS-5); Arm B: the Adherence to Refills and Medications Scale (ARMS) and the Simplified Medication Adherence Questionnaire (SMAQ)) with a three-month interval to minimize respondent burden and order effects. Prescription refill data were calculated via Medication Possession Ratio (MPR) and Proportion of Days Covered (PDC). Agreement, diagnostic performance, and receiver operating characteristic analyses were performed.
resultsRefill-based measures estimated higher adherence than self-reported tools. A multi-method approach significantly increased the detection of nonadherent patients (49.4%-69.0%). PDC-based combinations detected more nonadherent cases than MPR. Among self-reported measures, ARMS demonstrated the strongest concordance with refill-based metrics (κ = 0.51-0.55; AUC≈0.80), followed by MARS-5 and MMAS-8, whereas SMAQ showed weaker performance.
conclusionMethodological variability significantly impacts reported adherence rates. While no single "gold standard" exists, integrating brief self-reported scales with objective metrics is feasible and provides a more comprehensive and clinically informative assessment of medication use. This multi-method approach is essential for identifying at-risk patients and tailoring adherence-support interventions in oncology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42455332What 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.