Evidence Hub

Methods and validity indicators for measuring adherence to statins in secondary cardiovascular prevention: a systematic review

A. López-Pineda, María Martínez-Muñóz, Rauf Nouni-García, A. Esquerdo-Arroyo, Álvaro Carbonell-Soliva, Elizabeth Ramirez-Familia, Ma Isabel Tomás-Rodríguez, J. Quesada et al.

Systematic Reviews, 2025

55 participants · 9 citations

Abstract

Adherence to statin therapy is crucial for reducing the recurrence of cardiovascular events. Numerous methods exist to measure medication adherence, including those based on prescription data, patient self-report, medication counting, and direct methods. It is important to determine which of these methods are appropriate for use in clinical practice. This systematic review aimed to identify the methods used to measure adherence and persistence to statins in patients undergoing cardiovascular secondary prevention and to evaluate the validity indicators of these methods. This systematic review included studies reporting methods to measure adherence and/or persistence to statins in cardiovascular secondary prevention. Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched from inception to February 2025. Rayyan was used for the study selection and extraction data processes. Validity indicators of the adherence/persistence methods were collected; it was reported. Risk of bias of studies reporting the method validity was evaluated using the COSMIN (Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments) tool. A total of 77 studies were included. Regarding adherence measurement, the most frequently used method was prescription refill records (n = 55) and self-report methods (n = 20). Electronic monitoring methods (n = 2), self-perceived adherence by physician (n = 1), and pill counting (n = 1) were less frequently used methods. Direct methods, using HPLC–MS/MS,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 55 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free