Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19567799›Full record

Trial reportJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA

Handheld vs. laptop computers for electronic data collection in clinical research: a crossover randomized trial.

Guy Haller, Dagmar M Haller, Delphine S Courvoisier, Christian Lovis

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. A systematic review of healthcare applications for smartphones.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2012
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Prospective pilot study of a tablet computer in an Emergency Department.International journal of medical informatics · 2012
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Guy HallerUnit of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Anesthesiology, Geneva University Hospitals, 24 Rue Micheli-du-Crest, 1211 Geneva 14, Switzerland. Guy.Haller@hcuge.ch
Dagmar M Haller
Delphine S Courvoisier
Christian Lovis

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare users' speed, number of entry errors and satisfaction in using two current devices for electronic data collection in clinical research: handheld and laptop computers.

designThe authors performed a randomized cross-over trial using 160 different paper-based questionnaires and representing altogether 45,440 variables. Four data coders were instructed to record, according to a random predefined and equally balanced sequence, the content of these questionnaires either on a laptop or on a handheld computer. Instructions on the kind of device to be used were provided to data-coders in individual sealed and opaque envelopes. Study conditions were controlled and the data entry process performed in a quiet environment. MEASUREMENTS: The authors compared the duration of the data recording process, the number of errors and users' satisfaction with the two devices. The authors divided errors into two separate categories, typing and missing data errors. The original paper-based questionnaire was used as a gold-standard.

resultsThe overall duration of the recording process was significantly reduced (2.0 versus 3.3 min) when data were recorded on the laptop computer (p < 0.001). Data accuracy also improved. There were 5.8 typing errors per 1,000 entries with the laptop compared to 8.4 per 1,000 with the handheld computer (p < 0.001). The difference was even more important for missing data which decreased from 22.8 to 2.9 per 1,000 entries when a laptop was used (p < 0.001). Users found the laptop easier, faster and more satisfying to use than the handheld computer.

conclusionsDespite the increasing use of handheld computers for electronic data collection in clinical research, these devices should be used with caution. They double the duration of the data entry process and significantly increase the risk of typing errors and missing data. This may become a particularly crucial issue in studies where these devices are provided to patients or healthcare workers, unfamiliar with computer technologies, for self-reporting or research data collection processes.

Indexed as

Computers, HandheldMicrocomputersUser-Computer InterfaceAdolescentAdultBiomedical ResearchConsumer BehaviorCross-Over StudiesEfficiency, OrganizationalElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansMalePoint-of-Care SystemsSwitzerlandTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID19567799
PMCPMC2744716

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.