Trial reportJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA
Handheld vs. laptop computers for electronic data collection in clinical research: a crossover randomized trial.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review of healthcare applications for smartphones.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2012Pooled it
- The impact of mobile handheld technology on hospital physicians' work practices and patient care: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIAPooled it
- Mobile electronic versus paper case report forms in clinical trials: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medical research methodology · 2017Trial
- Does electronic data collection perform better than paper-based data collection in health research fieldwork? A participatory action research in Zanzibar.BMJ public health · 2024Article
- Adopting information and communications technology in the control, prevention, and management of stroke: perspectives from patients and providers in Uganda.Frontiers in stroke · 2024Article
- Electronic Records With Tablets at the Point of Care in an Internal Medicine Unit: Before-After Time Motion Study.JMIR human factors · 2022Article
- The Association Between Using a Mobile Version of an Electronic Health Record and the Well-Being of Nurses: Cross-sectional Survey Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2021Article
- Usefulness of smartphone use among surgeons in clinical practice during the pandemic of COVID-19: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- Article
- Dematerialisation of patient's informed consent in radiology: insights on current status and radiologists' opinion from an Italian online survey.La Radiologia medica · 2019Article
- Electronic case report forms and electronic data capture within clinical trials and pharmacoepidemiology.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2017Review
- Can Malaysian Young Adults Report Dietary Intake Using a Food Diary Mobile Application? A Pilot Study on Acceptability and Compliance.Nutrients · 2017Article
- Evaluating the feasibility of using online software to collect patient information in a chiropractic practice-based research network.The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association · 2016Article
- Assessing the Usability of Six Data Entry Mobile Interfaces for Caregivers: A Randomized Trial.JMIR human factors · 2015Article
- Customized-Language Voice Survey on Mobile Devices for Text and Image Data Collection Among Ethnic Groups in Thailand: A Proof-of-Concept Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2014Article
- Interpretive flexibility in mobile health: lessons from a government-sponsored home care program.Journal of medical Internet research · 2013Article
- Challenges in the Implementation of a Mobile Application in Clinical Practice: Case Study in the Context of an Application that Manages the Daily Interventions of Nurses.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2013Article
- iPad-assisted measurements of duration estimation in psychiatric patients and healthy control subjects.PloS one · 2013Article
- Prospective pilot study of a tablet computer in an Emergency Department.International journal of medical informatics · 2012Article
- Implementing school malaria surveys in Kenya: towards a national surveillance system.Malaria journal · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.