Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 616

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prevalence, determinants, and outcomes of nonadherence to imatinib therapy in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia: the ADAGIO study

Open access
Noens, Lucien, van Lierde, Marie-Anne, De Bock, Robrecht, Verhoef, Gregor, Zachée, Pierre, Berneman, Zwi, Martiat, Philippe, Mineur, Philippe, Van Eygen, Koen, MacDonald, Karen, De Geest, Sabina, Albrecht, Tara, Abraham, Ivo·2009·Blood
DOI 10.1182/blood-2008-12-196543
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Imatinib mesylate (imatinib) has been shown to be highly efficacious in the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Continuous and adequate dosing is essential for optimal outcomes and with imatinib treatment possibly being lifelong, patient adherence is critical. The ADAGIO (Adherence Assessment with Glivec: Indicators and Outcomes) study aimed to assess prospectively over a 90-day period the prevalence of imatinib nonadherence in patients with CML; to develop a multivariate canonical correlation model of how various determinants may be associated with various measures of nonadherence; and to examine whether treatment response is associated with adherence levels. A total of 202 patients were recruited from 34 centers in Belgium, of whom 169 were evaluable. One-third of patients were considered to be nonadherent. Only 14.2% of patients were perfectly adherent with 100% of prescribed imatinib taken. On average, patients with suboptimal response had significantly higher mean percentages of imatinib not taken (23.2%, standard deviation [SD] = 23.8) than did those with optimal response (7.3%, SD = 19.3, P = .005; percentages calculated as proportions × 100). Nonadherence is more prevalent than patients, physicians, and family members believe it is, and therefore should be assessed routinely. It is associated with poorer response to imatinib. Several determinants may serve as alert signals, many of which are clinically modifiable.

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 · 10.1182/blood-2008-12-196543

Cites

5 of 5 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

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 616

Metadata

Authors
Noens, L., van Lierde, M.-A., De Bock, R., Verhoef, G., Zachée, P., Berneman, Z., Martiat, P., Mineur, P., Van Eygen, K., MacDonald, K., De Geest, S., Albrecht, T., & Abraham, I.
Venue
Blood
Publisher
American Society of Hematology
Published
2009-05-28
Volume
113
Issue
22
Pages
5401-5411
ISSN
  • 0006-4971 (ISSN-L)
  • 1528-0020
DOI
10.1182/blood-2008-12-196543
OpenAlex
W2048809946
Cited by
616
References
5
FWCI
32.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prevalence, determinants, and outcomes of nonadherence to imatinib therapy in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia: the ADAGIO study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1182/blood-2008-12-196543
The paper
Noens, L., van Lierde, M.-A., De Bock, R., Verhoef, G., Zachée, P., Berneman, Z., Martiat, P., Mineur, P., Van Eygen, K., MacDonald, K., De Geest, S., Albrecht, T., & Abraham, I. (2009). Prevalence, determinants, and outcomes of nonadherence to imatinib therapy in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia: the ADAGIO study. Blood. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2008-12-196543

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.