Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27143906›Full record

ArticleTherapeutics and clinical risk management2016

The Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease 12-item questionnaire: equivalence, reliability, validity, and feasibility of the touch-screen administration versus the paper-and-pencil version.

Fausto Salaffi, Marco Di Carlo, Marina Carotti, Sonia Farah, Marwin Gutierrez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Barriers and Facilitators to the International Implementation of Standardized Outcome Measures in Clinical Cleft Practice.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. 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

5 authors.

Fausto SalaffiRheumatology Department, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Marco Di CarloRheumatology Department, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Marina CarottiRadiology Department, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Sonia FarahDII, Department of Information Engineering, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Marwin GutierrezRheumatology Department, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy; Musculoskeletal Department, National Rehabilitation Institute, Mexico City, Mexico.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOver the last few years, there has been a shift toward a more patient-centered perspective of the disease by adopting patient-reported outcomes. Touch-screen formats are increasingly being used for data collection in routine care and research.

objectivesThe aim of this study is to examine the equivalence, reliability, validity and respondent preference for a computerized touch-screen version of the Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease 12-item (PsAID-12) questionnaire in comparison with the original paper-and-pencil version, in a cohort of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

methodsOne hundred and fifty-nine patients with PsA completed both the touch screen- and the conventional paper-and-pencil administered PsAID-12 questionnaire. Agreement between formats was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients. Spearman's rho correlation coefficient was used to test convergent validity of the touch screen format of PsAID-12, while receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to test discriminant validity. In order to assess the patient's preference, the participants filled in an additional questionnaire. The time taken to complete both formats was measured.

resultsA high concordance between the responses to the two modes of the PsAID-12 tested was found, with no significant mean differences. Intraclass correlation coefficients between data obtained for touch-screen and paper versions ranged from 0.801 to 0.962. There was a very high degree of correlation between the touch-screen format of PsAID-12 and composite disease activity indices (all at a P level <0.0001), Health Assessment Questionnaire, and Physician Assessment of disease activity. The discriminatory power of the touch-screen format of PsAID-12, assessed using the minimal disease activity - Outcome Measurements in Rheumatology Clinical Trials criteria, was very good, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.937 and a resulting cutoff value of 2.5. The touch-screen questionnaire was readily accepted and preferred. The mean time spent for completing the questionnaire on touch screen was 2 minutes and on paper was 2.7 minutes.

conclusionThe touch-screen mode of administration of PsAID-12 can be a feasible and suitable alternative to the paper-and-pencil mode for the assessment of patients with PsA.

Indexed as

patient-reported outcomesPsAID-12psoriatic arthritistouch-screen questionnaire

Identifiers

PMID27143906
PMCPMC4844252

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.