Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 557

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Development and Validation of the Medication Regimen Complexity Index

George, Johnson, Phun, Yee-Teng, Bailey, Michael J, Kong, David CM, Stewart, Kay·2004·Annals of Pharmacotherapy

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Medication regimen attributes, such as the number of drugs, dosage frequency, administration instructions, and the prescribed dosage forms, have been shown to influence patient outcomes. No single tool for quantifying the complexity of general medication regimens has been published in the medical literature. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a tool to quantify the complexity of prescribed medication regimens. METHODS: Literature findings and the expertise of the authors were used for developing the tool. Eight pharmacy researchers helped in establishing the tool's face and content validity. The new tool was tested on 134 medication regimens from patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Six regimens with a spread of scores on the tool were presented to a 5–member expert panel that subjectively ranked these regimens to confirm the tool's criterion-related validity. The relationships between scores on the tool and various independent variables were tested to judge the tool's construct validity. Two raters scored 25 regimens using the tool to test its inter-rater and test—retest reliabilities. RESULTS: A 65–item Medication Regimen Complexity Index (MRCI) was developed. The expert panel had strong agreement (Kendall's W = 0.8; p = 0.001) on their individual rankings of the 6 regimens. The panel's consensus ranking had perfect correlation with the MRCI ranking. The total MRCI score had significant correlation with the number of drugs in the regimen (Spearman's Rho = 0.9; p < 0.0001), but not with the age and gender of the patients. Inter-rater and test—retest reliabilities for the total score and scores for individual sections on the MRCI were ≥0.9. CONCLUSIONS: The MRCI is a reliable and valid tool for quantifying drug regimen complexity with potential applications in both practice and research.

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 · 10.1345/aph.1d479

Cites

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

See all 557

Metadata

Authors
George, J., Phun, Y.-T., Bailey, M. J., Kong, D. C., & Stewart, K.
Venue
Annals of Pharmacotherapy
Published
2004-09
Volume
38
Issue
9
Pages
1369-1376
ISSN
  • 0012-6578 (ISSN-L)
  • 1060-0280
  • 1542-6270
OpenAlex
W2120256142
Cited by
557
References
0
FWCI
1.33
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

How to cite

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

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Development and Validation of the Medication Regimen Complexity Index. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1345/aph.1d479
The paper
George, J., Phun, Y.-T., Bailey, M. J., Kong, D. C., & Stewart, K. (2004). Development and Validation of the Medication Regimen Complexity Index. Annals of Pharmacotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1345/aph.1d479

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.