Skip to main content
. 2011 Dec 5;13(4):e103. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1738

Table 3.

Results of methodological quality.

Study Validity criteriaa met Study qualityb Quality measurement
adherence
Randomized clinical trials
Artinian [27] Not applicablec Low Low
Jan [28] a, b, c, d, i, j High Low
Chan [29] a, b, f, i, j Low Low
Chan [30] a, b, c, f, hd, i, j High High
Joseph [31] a, b, c, d, e, h, i, j High Low
Ross [32] a, b, c, d, e, he, i, j, k High Low
Guendelman [34] a, b, d, i, j Low Low
DeVito Dabbs [35] a, b, c, e, i, j High Low
Van der Meer [36] a, b, c, i, j, k High Low
Van der Meer [37] a, c, hf, i, j, k High Low
Prospective design/clinical trial or cohort design
Cherry [33] Low Low
Dew [39] Low Low
Survey
Dilorio [38] Low Low

a a: randomization adequate; b: treatment allocation concealed; c: groups similar at baseline regarding most important indicators; d: patients blinded to intervention; e: care provider blinded to intervention; f: outcome assessor blinded to intervention; g: co-interventions avoided; h: compliance with intervention acceptable; i: dropout rate after baseline acceptable; j: outcome assessed similarly in all groups; k: intention-to-treat analysis included.

b That is, 6 of 11 validity criteria were met.

c No data on medication adherence for the control group and therefore judged as low quality.

d Compliance was acceptable in the first interval (<90 days).

e Compliance was acceptable in the first interval (6 months).

f Compliance was acceptable in the first interval (3 months).