Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39568584›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2024

Chemical adherence testing in the clinical management of hypertension: a scoping review.

Louise Rabbitt, James Curneen, Michael Conall Dennedy, Gerard J Molloy

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Louise RabbittDepartment of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland.
James CurneenDepartment of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Michael Conall DennedyDepartment of Pharmacology, School of Medicine, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Gerard J MolloyGalway University Hospital, Saolta Healthcare Group, Galway, Ireland.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

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

adherence-compliance-persistanceantihypertensiveblood pressurechemical adherence testinghypertensionmass spectrometry

Identifiers

PMID39568584
PMCPMC11576289

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.