Cochrane · systematic review · CD012675
Mobile phone‐based interventions for improving adherence to medication prescribed for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults
Palmer, MJ, Machiyama, K, Woodd, S, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2021 · Cochrane Library
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
5
current version
GRADE rated
5
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 1 · 20%Low 3 · 60%Moderate 1 · 20%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Show all 2 versionsMobile phone interventions compared to usual care for improving adherence to medication prescribed for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease
Population: people prescribed medication for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Objective measure of medication adherence: Cholesterol (low‐density lipoprotein) Mobile phone interventions vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 5441 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Objective measure of medication adherence: Blood pressure Mobile phone interventions vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 13 studies · 25166 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Combined CVD events Mobile phone interventions vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 4 studies · 12439 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events Mobile phone interventions vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 8285 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Cognitive outcome: satisfaction with treatment Mobile phone interventions vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 2535 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, indirectness |