Patterns and Predictors of Adherence to Statin Therapy Among Older Patients: Protocol for a Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The benefits of statin therapy are significantly compromised by noncompliance. Although elderly patients may have particular challenges with medication adherence and persistence, previous reviews on statin adherence have not focused on this population. Additionally, comparisons of adherence and persistence specific to statin indication (primary or secondary prevention) have not been thoroughly explored. Objective: We aim to assess the extent of, and factors associated with, adherence and persistence to statin therapy among older populations (aged ≥65 years). Methods: A systematic review will be undertaken according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations. Searches will be performed using multiple electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database) to identify relevant randomized trials and observational studies that evaluated statin adherence and/or persistence as an outcome. Eligible studies will include those involving community-living or outpatient elderly individuals. The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) will be assessed via the Joanna Briggs Institute’s critical appraisal checklist for RCTs, and the quality assessment of observational studies will be undertaken using a set of questions formulated with resort to the National Institute of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. When possible, meta-analyses will be conducted using random-effect modeling and generic inverse variance analyses for adjusted-effect estimates. Heterogeneity across studies will be quantified using the I2 statistic. The presence of publication bias will be assessed using funnel plots and Egger’s regression tests. A leave-one-out sensitivity analysis will also be conducted to assess the impact of individual study results on pooled estimates. To explore possible sources of heterogeneity across studies, subgroup analyses will be performed based on covariates such as study design, statin indication, country of study, and length of patient follow-up. Results: The electronic database searches were completed in December 2016. Retrieved articles are currently being screened and the entire study is expected to be completed by June 2017. Conclusions: This systematic review will provide further understanding of the patterns of, and barriers to, statin adherence and persistence among older patients. The findings will inform clinical practice and the design of appropriate interventions. Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42016053191
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.054 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.068 | 0.007 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".