↓ Skip to main content

Does the association between adherence to statin medications and mortality depend on measurement approach? A retrospective cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Does the association between adherence to statin medications and mortality depend on measurement approach? A retrospective cohort study
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0339-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mhd. Wasem Alsabbagh, Dean Eurich, Lisa M. Lix, Thomas W. Wilson, David F. Blackburn

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between mortality and statin adherence using two different approaches to adherence measurement (summary versus repeated-measures). A retrospective cohort study was conducted using administrative data from Saskatchewan, Canada between 1994 and 2008. Eligible individuals received a prescription for a statin following hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Adherence was measured using proportion of days covered (PDC) expressed either as: 1) a fixed summary measure, or 2) as a repeatedly measured covariate. Multivariable Cox-proportional hazards models were used to estimate the association between adherence and mortality. Among 9,051 individuals, optimal adherence (≥80%) modeled with a fixed summary measure was not associated with mortality benefits (adjusted HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.09, p = 0.60). In contrast, repeated-measures approach resulted in a significant 25% reduction in the risk of death (adjusted HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.85, p < 0.01). Unlike the summary measure, the repeated measures approach produces a significant reduction of all-cause mortality with optimal adherence. This effect may be a result of the repeated measures approach being more sensitive, or more prone to survival bias. Our findings clearly demonstrate the need to undertake (and report) multiple approaches when assessing the benefits of medication adherence.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 3%
Unknown 30 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Other 3 10%
Other 10 32%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 29%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Mathematics 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 5 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 July 2019.
All research outputs
#874,438
of 17,364,317 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#118
of 1,610 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,442
of 274,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,364,317 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,610 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 274,062 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them