Trial reportThe patient2013
Demonstrating measurement equivalence of the electronic and paper formats of the Urticaria Patient Daily Diary in patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria.
Trial report in The patient, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Angioedema in chronic spontaneous urticaria is underdiagnosed and has a substantial impact: Analyses from ASSURE-CSU.Allergy · 2018Observational
- Comparison of Urticaria Activity Score Over 7 Days (UAS7) Values Obtained from Once-Daily and Twice-Daily Versions: Results from the ASSURE-CSU Study.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2018Article
- The burden of chronic spontaneous urticaria is substantial: Real-world evidence from ASSURE-CSU.Allergy · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Urticaria Patient Daily Diary (UPDD), originally developed on paper, is a measure of key symptoms of chronic idiopathic urticaria (CIU). The development of the electronic version (eUPDD) involved moderate modifications to the appearance of the paper version.
objectiveThis study assessed the measurement equivalence of the electronic and paper versions of the UPDD in a sample of patients with CIU.
methodsThis was a cross-over study of patients with moderate-severe CIU refractory to H1 antihistamines. Patients were randomized to either the eUPDD followed by the paper UPDD or vice versa. The UPDD includes morning and evening questions; both sets were administered together in this study. An hour-long filler task was given between paper and electronic administrations. Patients with stable symptoms between the two assessments were included in the analyses. Cohen's kappa coefficients and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were computed as applicable to assess equivalence.
resultsA total of 91 patients participated (mean age 43 years, 79.1 % female). Symptoms were stable between assessments for 67-74 (74-81 %) patients (varied by symptom). Kappa coefficients ranged from 0.82 to 1.00 for the individual UPDD items. For the Urticaria Activity Score (the sum of the 'itch severity' and 'number of hives' item scores) the ICC was 0.90 for the morning (Wilcoxon p = 0.331) and 0.95 for the evening (Wilcoxon p = 0.836).
conclusionsAll test-retest statistics in this study were well above the accepted threshold, indicating excellent agreement between the two administration methods. Findings support the measurement equivalence of the electronic and paper versions of the UPDD to measure CIU symptoms.
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.