OSTEOARTHRITIS
Test-retest of computerized health status questionnaires frequently used in the monitoring of knee osteoarthritis: A randomized crossover trial
This report has been verified
by one or more authors of the
original publication.
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2013;1(11):184 BMC; 2011; 12; 19020 elderly female participants with knee osteoarthritis (OA) were randomized to answer questionnaires, such as VAS pain and the Physical Activity Scale, on traditional paper or a touch screen first. The results of the study indicated that there were significant differences between the paper and online version of the ADL Taxonomy. However, all other questionnaires gave similar results in both groups.
Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?
Was allocation adequately concealed?
Blinding Treatment Providers: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Outcome Assessors: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Patients: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Was loss to follow-up (missing outcome data) infrequent?
Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?
Were outcomes objective, patient-important and assessed in a manner to limit bias (ie. duplicate assessors, Independent assessors)?
Was the sample size sufficiently large to assure a balance of prognosis and sufficiently large number of outcome events?
Was investigator expertise/experience with both treatment and control techniques likely the same (ie.were criteria for surgeon participation/expertise provided)?
はい = 1
不確実＝0.5
無関係 = 0
いいえ = 0
報告基準評価では、著者が出版物内で試験の方法論的特徴や試験特性を報告する際の透明性を評価します。評価は以下の5つのカテゴリーに分類されます。
2/4
Randomization
3/4
Outcome Measurements
4/4
Inclusion / Exclusion
4/4
Therapy Description
4/4
Statistics
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65
Fragility Indexは、重要な所見の解釈を助けるツールで、結果の強さの尺度を提供します。Fragility Indexは、その所見が有意でなくなるために、二項対立の結果に追加する必要がある連続した事象の数を表します。数値が小さいほど弱い所見を表し、数値が大きいほど強い所見を表します。
なぜ今この研究が必要なのですか？
The traditional paper form of administering health status questionnaires can be time consuming and error prone. On the other hand, computer-based questionnaires have the ability to not only save time but also to simplify the process. The aim of this randomized controlled trial is to compare the data collected from traditional paper questionnaires to the computerized version and analyze similarity and patient acceptance.
主な研究課題は何ですか？
Do computerized versions of health status questionnaires give comparable results to the traditional paper forms, in female patients with knee OA?
重要な知見は？
- KOOS, VAS, SF-36 and Physical Activity Scales displayed high ICC values between the two groups (p>0.8)
- the ADL Taxonomy displayed a mean difference of 0.5 for ICC values, but this difference was due to the responses of one individual
- 16 out of 20 patients preferred the computerized version questionnaire
最も覚えておくべきことは？
There are no significant differences in responses between the computerized and traditional paper version of questionnaires.
それが私の患者ケアにどのように影響するか？
Physicians should consider other factors, such as available time, to determine which questionnaire style is more appropriate.
免責事項
このページに記載されている内容は、情報提供のみを目的としたものであり、専門的な医療アドバイス、診断、治療の代わりとなるものではありません。治療が必要な場合は、必ず医師の診断を仰ぐか、最寄りの救急外来を受診してください。このページに記載されている内容に関して個人が表明した意見、信念、見解は、OrthoEvidenceの意見、信念、見解を反映するものではありません。
0の4 月間無料記事のロック解除
