ArticleNagoya journal of medical science2016
Validity of a tablet computer version of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association hip disease evaluation questionnaire: a pilot study.
Article in Nagoya journal of medical science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Drug closed-loop management system using mobile technology.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Japanese Orthopaedic Association hip disease evaluation questionnaire (JHEQ) was established as a new patient-reported outcome for patients with hip disease. We developed a JHEQ application beta version for tablet computers. The application has a slider system to input visual analogue scale (VAS) measurements. The purposes of this study were 1) to test whether the VAS that was acquired from this slider system was equal to the value recorded on paper and 2) to evaluate the validity and agreement of the JHEQ tablet version. A total of 57 patients were analyzed in the study (mean age, 60.2 years; range, 29-81 years). They received either the paper-and-pencil version (paper version) or the tablet computer version (tablet version). To evaluate the validity of the tablet version, we analyzed differences in the VAS and total scores between the paper version and tablet computer version. In addition, we calculated Cronbach's alpha, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and the Pearson's correlation coefficient (CC). The VAS scores in the tablet version were significantly lower than those in the paper version (22.3 ± 5.4 vs. 17.0 ± 4.5 and 28.1 ± 6.1 vs. 23.5 ± 5.3, respectively; all P < 0.05). Values of Cronbach's alpha, the ICC, and the CC among subscales ranged from 0.90 to 0.95. In conclusion, the total JHEQ score on the tablet computer beta version was in agreement with the score on the paper version. However, the VAS on the tablet version, which used a slider bar system, proved unreliable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27578907PMC4995269What 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.