For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
51
views
21
references
 Top references
cited by
112
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      1,379
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Association of a Smartphone Application With Medication Adherence and Blood Pressure Control : The MedISAFE-BP Randomized Clinical Trial

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Medication nonadherence accounts for up to half of uncontrolled hypertension. Smartphone applications (apps) that aim to improve adherence are widely available but have not been rigorously evaluated.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Do multiple outcome measures require p-value adjustment?

          Ronald Feise (2002)
          Background Readers may question the interpretation of findings in clinical trials when multiple outcome measures are used without adjustment of the p-value. This question arises because of the increased risk of Type I errors (findings of false "significance") when multiple simultaneous hypotheses are tested at set p-values. The primary aim of this study was to estimate the need to make appropriate p-value adjustments in clinical trials to compensate for a possible increased risk in committing Type I errors when multiple outcome measures are used. Discussion The classicists believe that the chance of finding at least one test statistically significant due to chance and incorrectly declaring a difference increases as the number of comparisons increases. The rationalists have the following objections to that theory: 1) P-value adjustments are calculated based on how many tests are to be considered, and that number has been defined arbitrarily and variably; 2) P-value adjustments reduce the chance of making type I errors, but they increase the chance of making type II errors or needing to increase the sample size. Summary Readers should balance a study's statistical significance with the magnitude of effect, the quality of the study and with findings from other studies. Researchers facing multiple outcome measures might want to either select a primary outcome measure or use a global assessment measure, rather than adjusting the p-value.
          Article 0 comments Cited 406 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Patients' use of the Internet for medical information.

            Joseph Diaz, Rebecca A Griffith, James J Ng … (2002)
            To determine the percentage of patients enrolled in a primary care practice who use the Internet for health information, to describe the types of information sought, to evaluate patients' perceptions of the quality of this information, and to determine if patients who use the Internet for health information discuss this with their doctors. Self-administered mailed survey. Patients from a primary care internal medicine private practice. Randomly selected patients ( N=1,000) were mailed a confidential survey between December 1999 and March 2000. The response rate was 56.2%. Of the 512 patients who returned the survey, 53.5% (274) stated that they used the Internet for medical information. Those using the Internet for medical information were more educated ( P <.001) and had higher incomes ( P <.001). Respondents used the Internet for information on a broad range of medical topics. Sixty percent felt that the information on the Internet was the "same as" or "better than" information from their doctors. Of those using the Internet for health information, 59% did not discuss this information with their doctor. Neither gender, education level, nor age less than 60 years was associated with patients sharing their Web searches with their physicians. However, patients who discussed this information with their doctors rated the quality of information higher than those who did not share this information with their providers. Primary care providers should recognize that patients are using the World Wide Web as a source of medical and health information and should be prepared to offer suggestions for Web-based health resources and to assist patients in evaluating the quality of medical information available on the Internet.
            Article 0 comments Cited 207 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Screening for high blood pressure in adults: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

              Albert L Siu (2015)
              Update of the 2007 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) reaffirmation recommendation statement on screening for high blood pressure in adults.
              Article 0 comments Cited 156 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Title: JAMA Internal Medicine
                Abbreviated Title: JAMA Intern Med
                Publisher: American Medical Association (AMA)
                ISSN (Print): 2168-6106
                Publication date Created: June 01 2018
                Publication date (Print): June 01 2018
                Volume: 178
                Issue: 6
                Page: 802
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Center for Healthcare Delivery Sciences (C4HDS) and Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
                [2 ]Department of Internal Medicine, Atrius Health, Boston, Massachusetts
                [3 ]Evidation Health, San Mateo, California
                Article
                DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.0447
                PMC ID: 6145760
                PubMed ID: 29710289
                SO-VID: a020cdca-d193-4214-ba11-942540973488
                Copyright © © 2018
                History

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content1,379

                See all similar

                Cited by111

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors1,045

                See all reference authors