ArticleThe Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association2016
Evaluating the feasibility of using online software to collect patient information in a chiropractic practice-based research network.
Article in The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPractice based research networks (PBRNs) are increasingly used as a tool for evidence based practice. We developed and tested the feasibility of using software to enable online collection of patient data within a chiropractic PBRN to support clinical decision making and research in participating clinics. PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of using online software to collect quality patient information.
methodsThe study consisted of two phases: 1) Assessment of the quality of information provided, using a standardized form; and 2) Exploration of patients' perspectives and experiences regarding online information provision through semi-structured interviews. Data analysis was descriptive.
resultsForty-five new patients were recruited. Thirty-six completed online forms, which were submitted by an appropriate person 100% of the time, with an error rate of less than 1%, and submitted in a timely manner 83% of the time. Twenty-one participants were interviewed. Overall, online forms were preferred given perceived security, ease of use, and enabling provision of more accurate information.
conclusionsUse of online software is feasible, provides high quality information, and is preferred by most participants. A pen-and-paper format should be available for patients with this preference and in case of technical difficulties.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27069272PMC4807687W2341406849What 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.