Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 321

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Compliance With Osteoporosis Medications

Solomon, Daniel H.·2005·Archives of Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Long-term compliance with pharmacologic treatments for many asymptomatic conditions may be suboptimal, but little is known about compliance with medications used for osteoporosis. This study was undertaken to assess the level and determinants of compliance with drugs prescribed for osteoporosis. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used pharmacy claims data from US Medicare and filled prescriptions from a state pharmaceutical benefits program. We included persons 65 years or older who initiated use of a medication for osteoporosis (alendronate sodium, calcitonin, hormone therapy, raloxifene hydrochloride, or risedronate) from January 1, 1996, through December 31, 2002. The outcome of interest was suboptimal medication compliance, defined as equal to or less than 66% of days with medication during a 60-day period. RESULTS: One year after initiating treatment for osteoporosis, 45.2% of the 40,002 patients were not continuing to fill prescriptions. Five years after initiation, 52.1% of patients were not continuing to fill prescriptions for an osteoporosis medication. Several characteristics independently predicted compliance: female sex, younger age, fewer comorbid conditions, using fewer nonosteoporosis medications, bone mineral density testing before and after initiating a medication, a fracture before and after initiating a medication, and nursing home residence during the 12 months before initiating a medication. However, models adjusted for the significant patient variables explained only 6% of the variation in compliance. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients who initiate a medication for osteoporosis do not continue to take it as prescribed. Although several patient characteristics significantly correlated with compliance, adjusted models explained little of the variation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archinte.165.20.2414

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Solomon, D. H.
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Published
2005-11-14
Volume
165
Issue
20
Pages
2414
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2158943274
Cited by
321
References
1
FWCI
18.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.