Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20529332›Full record

Trial reportBMC musculoskeletal disorders2010

A within-subjects trial to test the equivalence of online and paper outcome measures: the Roland Morris disability questionnaire.

Felicity L Bishop, Graham Lewis, Scott Harris, Naomi McKay, Philippa Prentice, Haymo Thiel, George T Lewith

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical TrialComparative StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2010. 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
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Score equivalence of electronic and paper versions of the Social Difficulties Inventory (SDI-21): a randomised crossover trial in cancer patients.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2013
    Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Enhancing the Validity of a Quality of Life Measure for Autistic People.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2018
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Felicity L BishopComplementary Medicine Research Unit, School of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. F.L.Bishop@southampton.ac.uk
Graham Lewis
Scott Harris
Naomi McKay
Philippa Prentice
Haymo Thiel
George T Lewith
University of Southampton · GBHealth Sciences University · GB

Funding

Arthritis Research UK 18099Versus Arthritis 18099
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAugmenting validated paper versions of existing outcome measures with an equivalent online version may offer substantial research advantages (cost, rapidity and reliability). However, equivalence of online and paper questionnaires cannot be assumed, nor can acceptability to respondents. The aim was to test whether online and written versions of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), a standard measure of functional disability in back pain, are equivalent at both group and individual levels to establish whether they can be used interchangeably.

methodsThis is a within-participants equivalence study. 167 participants with back pain fully completed both the paper and online versions of the RMDQ in random order. Participants were recruited from a chiropractic clinic and patient support groups in Southern England. Limits of equivalence were pre-defined as 0.5 RMDQ points, the Bland-Altman range was calculated, and participants' comments were examined using content analysis.

resultsThe mean score difference was 0.03 (SD = 1.43), with the 95% Confidence Interval falling entirely within our limits of equivalence (-0.19 to 0.25). The Bland-Altman range was -2.77 to 2.83 RMDQ points. Participants identified unique advantages and disadvantages associated with each version of the RMDQ.

conclusionsThe group and individual level data suggest that online and paper versions of the RMDQ are equivalent and can be used interchangeably. The Bland-Altman range appears to reflect the known measurement properties of the RMDQ. Furthermore, participants' comments confirmed the potential value to be had from offering them the choice of completing the RMDQ online or on paper.

Indexed as

Disability EvaluationInternetOnline SystemsSurveys and QuestionnairesAdolescentAdultAgedBack PainFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedObserver VariationOutcome Assessment, Health CarePain MeasurementPredictive Value of Tests

Identifiers

PMID20529332
PMCPMC2896920
OpenAlexW2148023028

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.