Trial reportInternational urogynecology journal2016
Time efficiency of a web-based questionnaire in urogynecology: a randomized study.
Trial report in International urogynecology journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Can electronic assessment tools improve the process of shared decision-making? A systematic review.Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia · 2023Pooled it
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
introduction and hypothesisBased on nationwide recommended questionnaires for women with pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD), we developed a web-based questionnaire (WBQ) that can be sent to women prior to their first visit. We hypothesized that using this WBQ would contribute to a more efficient first visit. Furthermore, we were interested in the satisfaction of patients who used the WBQ.
methodsWomen referred for PFD were randomized between WBQ and no questionnaire. Time spent per consultation was recorded in total and in split times for history taking, physical examination, counseling, and administration. Patient experience was evaluated by a standardized telephone interview.
resultsOne hundred and twenty-eight women were randomized: 64 in the WBQ group and 64 in the control group. History taking was significantly shorter in the WBQ group [mean difference (MD) -1 m 32 s; 95 % confidence interval (CI) -2:41 to -0:23], and time for counseling was significantly longer (MD 1 m 21 s; 95 % CI 0:06-2:37). Overall time of the consultation was equal. The need for an additional visit tended to be less frequent in the WBQ group [53 % versus 64 %; relative risk (RR) 1.3, 95 % CI 0.8-2.0]. Forty-nine percent of women considered the WBQ time consuming without adding value.
conclusionsThe WBQ contributed to a slightly more efficient use of the first consultation. While differences were small and patient satisfaction was low, other benefits of the WBQ should define whether the WBQ will be introduced.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26650226What 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.