CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 114Medication Adherence and ComplianceStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparing compliance patterns between randomized treatments

Vrijens, Bernard, Goetghebeur, Els·1997·Controlled Clinical Trials
DOI 10.1016/s0197-2456(96)00235-8
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

When two equally efficacious drugs enter the market, the one with the better compliance is likely to be more widely used. Special management of the delivery may produce increased compliance. In this paper we analyze a trial of a single drug dosing prescription with patients randomized to either daily self monitoring of the outcome (blood pressure) or not. The study used Medication Event Monitoring Systems (MEMS) to record each exact time and date when a patient opened the pill container. No established method is available for comparing these high-dimensional compliance patterns between groups. This paper investigates several summary measures that highlight different dimensions of the pattern and the drug context in which they may be meaningful. Further, we examine conditional and marginal models that enable comparisons of the full pattern of daily dosing indicators for subjects between the groups. We found no simple difference in average compliance levels, but we found an interesting interaction between treatment and time: similar compliance existed initially among patients in both randomized groups, with a stronger decline over time for patients who did not monitor their blood pressure. We discuss how a balance between simplicity of interpretation and efficiency of data use may be sought in this case.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0197-2456(96)00235-8

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 15 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Vrijens, B., & Goetghebeur, E.
Affiliations
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège (BE)
  • Transnational University Limburg (BE)
Corresponding author
Vrijens, Bernard
ORCID
Venue
Controlled Clinical Trials
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1997-06
Volume
18
Issue
3
Pages
187-203
ISSN
0197-2456 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s0197-2456(96)00235-8
OpenAlex
W2012961958
Cited by
114
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 12
FWCI
5.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Controlled Clinical Trials (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
  • Document Server@UHasselt (UHasselt) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Keywords
medication adherence, self-monitoring, blood pressure, medication event monitoring system, summary measures, conditional models, marginal models, antihypertensive drugs
MeSH terms
Antihypertensive Agents, Blood Pressure, Drug Administration Schedule, Humans, Hypertension, Patient Compliance, Self Administration, Self Care, Models, Statistical, Blood Pressure Monitors, Bias, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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