Quality of measurement properties of medication adherence instruments in cardiovascular diseases and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medication adherence has a major impact on reducing mortality and healthcare costs related to the treatment of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes mellitus. Selecting the best patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) among the many available for this kind of patient is extremely important. This study aims to critically assess, compare and synthesize the quality of the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures to assess medication adherence among patients with cardiovascular diseases and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: This review followed the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines and was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The searches were performed in Web of Science, SCOPUS, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, LILACS, PsycINFO, and ProQuest (gray literature). RESULTS: A total of 110 records encompassing 27 different PROMs were included in the review. The included records were published between 1986 and 2023, most of which reported studies conducted in the United States and were published in English. None of the PROMs were classified in the category "a", thus being recommended for use due to the quality of its measurement properties. The PROMs that should not be recommended for use (category "c") are the MTA, GMAS, DMAS-7, MALMAS, ARMS-D, and 5-item questionnaire. The remaining PROMs, e.g., MMAS-8, SMAQ, MEDS, MNPS, ARMS-12, MGT, MTA-OA, MTA-Insulin, LMAS-14, MARS-5, A-14, ARMS-10, IADMAS, MAQ, MMAS-5, ProMAS, ARMS-7, 3-item questionnaire, AS, 12-item questionnaire, and Mascard were considered as having the potential to be recommended for use (category "b"). CONCLUSION: None of the included PROMs met the criteria for being classified as trusted and recommended for use for patients with cardiovascular diseases and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, 21 PROMs have the potential to be recommended for use, but further studies are needed to ensure their quality based on the COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019129109.
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 | 0.077 | 0.195 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.046 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".