ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2024
Chemical adherence testing in the clinical management of hypertension: a scoping review.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinician's attitudes & perspective on chemical adherence testing in hypertension (CATCH): A qualitative interview study.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Chemical adherence testing in the clinical management of hypertension: a scoping review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Despite growing use, questions remain surrounding the utility, acceptability and feasibility of chemical adherence testing (CAT) as part of hypertension management in clinical practice. Objectives: This scoping review aimed to (i) identify and summarise studies using CAT in hypertension management, and (ii) describe and critically evaluate how CAT is currently being used in the clinical management of hypertension. Eligibility criteria: Peer-reviewed and published studies in English, reporting original research in any setting, with any study design, were included. Search concepts included hypertension, medication adherence, CAT, and their synonyms. Sources of evidence: Searches were carried out using Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and PsycInfo (EBSCO), alongside manual searching of reference lists. Using Covidence software, we screened titles and abstracts, followed by full-text articles. Data from the included articles were tabulated and summarised. Results: Of the 618 studies identified, 48 were included. The studies cover diverse clinical settings, and were mostly observational in design. 7 studies reporting adherence analyses within clinical trials for hypertension therapies. The use of theoretical frameworks to guide reporting was rare, and there was considerable variation in key terminology and definitions, most notably in the definition of adherence. Conclusion: The current body of evidence demonstrates considerable variability in the approach to implementing CAT for hypertension management in clinical practice, and a paucity of randomised controlled trials to evaluate its impact. Future research could (i) adopt a cohesive theoretical framework including clear operational definitions to standardise the approach to this important topic; (ii) further explore the impact of CAT on clinical outcomes using RCTs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.