ArticleJournal of athletic training2019
Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Validation: Disablement in the Physically Active Scale.
Article in Journal of athletic training, 2019. 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.
- Online questionnaire, clinical and biomechanical measurements for outcome prediction of plantar heel pain: feasibility for a cohort study.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2021Article
- Development and Validation of the Adolescent Sexting Scale (A-SextS) with a Spanish Sample.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextDetermining patient outcomes is essential to quality health care. Administering electronic patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) offers potential advantages, including faster completion and efficient data access and storage. However, commonly used PROMs have not been studied across multiple administration modes, limiting clinicians to paper forms until the electronic versions are validated.
objectiveTo determine the validity of an electronic version of the Disablement in the Physically Active (DPA) scale compared with the paper version. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Electronic and paper versions of the DPA scale were randomly administered to 117 participants (38 women, 79 men; age = 21.6 ± 5.9 years) 24 to 48 hours apart. Responses were compared using Pearson product moment correlations, canonical correlations, and covariance modeling.
resultsThe electronic version of the DPA scale was strongly correlated with the paper version when compared using a bivariate correlation (
conclusionsThe electronic version of the DPA scale was comparable with the paper version, making the former more efficient for use in athletic training. This study provides a template for other clinician-researchers to perform similar evaluations of electronic PROMs to determine their equivalency with the paper versions before implementing them in practice.
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.