Skip to main content

Table 1 Study quality as evaluated using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale

From: Real-world adherence to, and persistence with, once- and twice-daily oral disease-modifying drugs in patients with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Reference

Study design and patient selection

Outcome evaluation

Ascertainment of intervention/validity of study design

Patient selection

Outcome not present at start

Appropriate measure of adherence/persistence

Adequate/appropriate duration of follow-up

All patients accounted for followed up

Lanzillo R, et al. J Neurol. 2018;265:1174–1183

◉

●

●

●

●

●

Ferraro D, et al. Curr Med Res Opin. 2018;34:1803–1807

◉

●

●

●

●

●

Granqvist M, et al. JAMA Neurol. 2018;75:320–327

●

●

●

●

●

●

Hua LH, et al. Mult Scler. 2018;1,352,458,518,765,656

◉

◉

●

●

◉

●

Eriksson I, et al. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2018;74:219–226

●

●

●

●

●

●

Williams MJ, et al. Curr Med Res Opin. 2018;34:107–115

●

◉

○

●

●

●

Ernst FR, et al. Curr Med Res Opin. 2017;33:2099–2106

◉

●

●

●

◉

●

Lattanzi S, et al. J Neurol. 2017;264:2325–2329

◉

●

●

●

●

●

Gerber B, et al. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2017;18:218–224

●

◉

○

●

●

●

Zimmer A, et al. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2017;11:1815–1830

◉

●

◉

◉

◉

●

Hersh CM, et al. Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin. 2017;3:2055217317715485

◉

●

●

●

●

●

Vollmer B, et al. Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin. 2017;3:2055217317725102

◉

◉

◉

●

◉

●

Johnson KM, et al. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2017;23:844–852

●

◉

●

●

●

●

Smoot K, et al. Mult Scler. 2017;1,352,458,517,709,956

●

●

●

●

●

●

Burks J, et al. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2017;9:251–260

●

◉

○

●

●

●

Munsell M, et al. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;11:55–62

●

◉

○

●

●

●

Hersh CM, et al. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2016;10:44–52

◉

◉

●

●

●

●

Zhovtis L, et al. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2016;9:454–461

◉

●

●

●

●

●

Nazareth T, et al. BMC Neurol. 2016;16:187

●

●

●

◉

●

●

Wicks P, et al. BMC Res Notes. 2016;9:434

◉

●

●

●

○

◉

Warrender-Sparkes M, et al. Mult Scler. 2016;22:520–532

●

◉

●

●

◉

●

Lapierre Y, et al. Can J Neurol Sci. 2016;43:278–283 (29)

◉

○

◉

●

●

●

Braune S, et al. J Neurol. 2016;263:327–333

●

●

●

●

●

◉

Frisell T, et al. Mult Scler. 2016;22:85–93

●

◉

●

●

●

●

Longbrake EE, et al. Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin. 2016;2

◉

◉

●

●

◉

●

He A, et al. JAMA Neurol. 2015;72:405–413

●

●

●

◉

●

●

Hersh CM, et al. Int J Neurosci. 2015;125:678–685

◉

●

●

●

◉

●

Bergvall N, et al. J Med Econ. 2014;17:696–707

●

◉

○

●

●

●

Al-Hashel J, et al. CNS Drugs. 2014;28:817–824

◉

●

●

◉

◉

●

Agashivala N, et al. BMC Neurol. 2013;13:138

●

◉

○

●

●

●

Ontaneda D, et al. J Neurol Sci. 2012;323:167–172

◉

◉

●

●

○

●

  1. Abbreviations:RRMS relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, ● full-quality score, ◉ partial-quality score, ○ poor-quality score
  2. For the ascertainment of the intervention/validity of study design criterion, if the study was a medical chart review, evidence that there was an effort made to validate reported data resulted in a full-quality score. Otherwise, the medical chart review or registry study was assigned a partial-quality score. Prospective cohort studies and administrative claims database evaluations were given a full-quality score for this criterion
  3. For the patient selection criterion, studies were given a full-quality score if the patients were well characterized (i.e., age, sex, region, duration of MS diagnosis, MS severity, prior treatments, current treatment) and were representative of patients with RRMS. Studies were not penalized for including selected populations or for only evaluating a single center because it was felt that these studies were still valid cohort studies. Studies were given a poor-quality score if the patient population was not well-characterized and was not representative of patients with RRMS
  4. For the outcome of interest not present at the start of the study criterion, studies were given a full-quality score if they attempted to capture patient prescription abandonment and thoroughly described how it was ascertained. Administrative claims database analyses were not able to ascertain this, and were therefore given a poor-quality score for this criterion
  5. For the appropriate measurement of adherence/persistence criterion, studies with a full-quality score had to appropriately define and measure adherence and persistence and include and/or delineate switching for discontinuation
  6. The adequate/appropriate duration of follow-up criterion required full-quality studies to measure adherence/persistence over 1 year as this was the most common time horizon used and enabled comparability
  7. The all patients accounted at follow-up criterion required that all patients evaluated were followed up throughout the study and did not have missing data
Back to article page

BMC Neurology

ISSN: 1471-2377

Contact us