Compliance assessment in drug trials: has there been improvement in two decades?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Compliance is a key element in the success of therapy, both in practice and research. A study from 1974 demonstrated that compliance in clinical trials was only determined in 19% of studies requiring it. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to determine if there has been an improvement in compliance assessment in clinical trials. METHODS: All drug studies published in the British Medical Journal, Journal of Pediatrics, and Lancet from 1997 to 1999 were reviewed. Clinical trials were evaluated as to their measurement of compliance and the method of assessment. RESULTS: Of 303 studies in which the effects of drugs were reported, 165 required the incorporation of a measure of compliance, 86 did not, and in 52, compliance could not be measured. Of the studies requiring estimation of compliance, compliance was evaluated in 78 (47%). This rate did not vary between the journals examined or between trials in adults or children. The most common methods used to evaluate compliance were pill count (33%) and self report (25%). The use of drug assays (14%) and close supervision (9%) was less common. Electronic devices and other methods were uncommonly used (5%). In 16% of cases, a combination of methods was used. CONCLUSION: Although the rate of evaluation of compliance in drug trials has improved over the past 25 years, it continues to be examined in less than half of the clinical studies of drug effects in which compliance assessment is required. This rate appears to be similar in paediatric and adult drug studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".