ArticleRheumatology international2015
Validation of Portuguese-translated computer touch-screen questionnaires in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthritis, compared with paper formats.
Article in Rheumatology international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Electronic Data Capture Versus Conventional Data Collection Methods in Clinical Pain Studies: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Pooled it
- A meta-analytic review of measurement equivalence study findings of the SF-36® and SF-12® Health Surveys across electronic modes compared to paper administration.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2018Pooled it
- Comparing SF-36 Scores Collected Through Web-Based Questionnaire Self-completions and Telephone Interviews: An Ancillary Study of the SENTIPAT Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Trial
- Validity of a tablet computer version of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association hip disease evaluation questionnaire: a pilot study.Nagoya journal of medical science · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this paper was to assess the validity and reliability of the touch-screen standard Portuguese version of the following patient-reported outcomes (PROs), compared with paper format, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and spondyloarthritis: Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI), Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life scale (ASQoL), Short-Form 36 (SF-36), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and visual analogue scales (VAS) measuring pain and burden of disease. Adult patients with RA and spondyloarthritis attending the Portuguese Institute of Rheumatology were recruited from March 2013 to January 2014. Patients filled the paper and touch-screen formats of the standard Portuguese versions of the PROs. Two groups of VAS were used, RA and psoriatic arthritis (Global VAS) and another specific for spondyloarthrites (Spa-VAS). Paper questionnaires were filled 15 min before touch-screen formats. Agreement between formats (validity) was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), while internal consistency of scales (reliability) was assessed by Cronbach's alpha. Overall, 134 patients were included with a mean age of 51 years, 74.6 % female and 57.5 % presenting RA. BASDAI, BASFI, HAQ and ASQoL showed high ICC between paper and touch-screen formats (0.977, 0.958, 0.974 and 0.940, respectively). ICC for Global VAS ranged from 0.906 to 0.921, while Spa-VAS ranged from 0.867 to 0.943. The mean ICC for all SF-36 domains was 0.889 (ICC for each domain ranged from 0.781 to 0.944). Touch-screen standard Portuguese formats of these PROs may be valid and reliable tools for PRO measurement in rheumatology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26346588What 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.