Trial reportPloS one2018
Agreement between pre-exercise screening questionnaires completed online versus face-to-face.
Trial report in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Understanding Recruitment Yield From Social Media Advertisements and Associated Costs of a Telehealth Randomized Controlled Trial: Descriptive Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Trial
- Time Course of Cardiac Arrhythmia Following High-Volume Exercise in Recreational Cyclists.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Article
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
objectivesTo investigate the levels of agreement between self-reported responses to the Adult Pre-exercise Screening System (APSS) questionnaire using online versus face-to-face (F2F) modalities.
designConvenience sample of adults completing a pre-exercise screening questionnaire using different modalities.
methodsAdult volunteers (n = 94) were recruited to complete the APSS using both online and F2F modalities. Participants were provided a URL link to an online APSS questionnaire then followed-up the next day in a F2F interview. Objective health risk factors were also measured. Comparisons between responses were undertaken using kappa and correlation statistics to determine levels of agreement.
resultsThe levels of agreement between online versus F2F responses for the seven compulsory Stage 1 questions (known diseases and signs and/or symptoms of disease) were >94% (kappa = 0.644-0.794). Response comparisons for Stage 2 questions on health risk factors were also generally high (>82% agreement) but there were larger differences between reported and measured risk factors in Stage 3.
conclusionsLevels of agreement between the Stage 1 responses were substantial and support the use of this online option for pre-exercise screening. There were larger differences between self-reported and objectively measured health risk factors in Stages 2 and 3.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.