MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7101445203 · doi:10.4103/pmrr.pmrr_65_25

Effectiveness, Acceptability and Challenges of Medication Event Reminder Monitors in Tuberculosis Care: A Systematic Review

2025· article· en· W7101445203 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePreventive Medicine Research & Reviews · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyTuberculosisMedication adherenceMEDLINESystematic reviewHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Clinical trialRandomized controlled trialHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Poor adherence to tuberculosis (TB) treatment, both drug-susceptible and drug-resistant, contributes to unfavourable outcomes and drug resistance. Digital adherence technologies (DATs), including medication event reminder monitors (MERM), have emerged as promising tools to support adherence. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was conducted to assess the impact of MERM on medication adherence, clinical outcomes and satisfaction amongst TB patients and healthcare providers. Studies published up to 16 February 2023 were screened across PubMed, ScienceDirect, DOAJ, Embase and Web of Science. Eligible studies included clinical trials, observational and qualitative designs. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool for randomised controlled trials and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Results: Eight studies were included (3 trials, 4 prospective and 1 cross-sectional) with 76,811 participants. MERM was found to improve adherence and treatment outcomes. Influencing factors included age, gender, human immunodeficiency virus status, diagnosis type and patient setting. Conclusion: MERM appears effective and acceptable in TB care, although patient experiences vary. Additional research is needed to optimise DATs and tailor strategies for high-burden settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.284
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreventive Medicine Research & ReviewsSame topicFrench Urban and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207