The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Development and Validation of the Medication Regimen Complexity Index
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Interrater agreement and interrater reliability: Key concepts, approaches, and applications
Gisev, N., Bell, J. S., & Chen, T. F. (2013) · Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy · doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2012.04.004 · Cited by 924
Saqr, Y., Braun, E., Porter, K., Barnette, D., & Hanks, C. (2018) · Autism · doi:10.1177/1362361317709970 · Cited by 114
Polypharmacy and precision medicine
Fujita, K., Masnoon, N., Mach, J., O’Donnell, L. K., & Hilmer, S. N. (2023) · Cambridge Prisms: Precision Medicine · doi:10.1017/pcm.2023.10 · Cited by 27
Metadata
- Authors
- George, J., Phun, Y.-T., Bailey, M. J., Kong, D. C., & Stewart, K.
- Venue
- Annals of Pharmacotherapy
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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.