Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31857313›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2019

Comparison between electronic and paper versions of patient-reported outcome measures in subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an observational study with a cross-over administration.

Koichi Nishimura, Masaaki Kusunose, Ryo Sanda, Yousuke Tsuji, Yoshinori Hasegawa, Toru Oga

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. In-person and online application of the Bronchiectasis Health Questionnaire: are they interchangeable?Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia · 2022
    Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Koichi NishimuraDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Obu, Aichi, Japan koichi-nishimura@nifty.com.
Masaaki KusunoseDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Obu, Aichi, Japan.
Ryo SandaDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Obu, Aichi, Japan.
Yousuke TsujiHoshi Iryo-Sanki Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan.
Yoshinori HasegawaNational Hospital Organization, Nagoya Medical Center, Nagoya, Japan.
Toru OgaDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Kawasaki Medical School, Kurashiki, Okayama, Japan.
National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology · JPKawasaki Medical School · JPNational Hospital Organization · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesA wide range of electronic devices can be used for data collection of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Although comparisons between electronic and paper-based PRO measures have been undertaken in asthmatics, it is currently uncertain whether electronic questionnaires work equally as well as paper versions in elderly subjects with COPD. The aim of this study was to compare the responses to paper and electronic versions of the Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS) and the COPD Assessment Test (CAT).

designA randomised cross-over design was used to compare the responses to paper and electronic versions of the two tools. The interval between the two administrations was 1 week.

settingElectronic versions were self-administered under supervision using a tablet computer at our outpatient clinic (secondary care hospital in Japan) while paper questionnaires completed at home were requested to be returned by mail. It was intended that half of the patients completed the electronic versions of both questionnaires first, followed by the paper versions while the other half completed the paper versions first.

participantsEighty-one subjects with stable COPD were included.

resultsThe E-RS total scores (possible range 0-40) were 6.8±7.4 and 5.0±6.6 in the paper-based and electronic versions, respectively, and the CAT scores (possible range 0-40) were 10.0±7.4 and 8.6±7.8. In both questionnaires, higher scores indicate worse status. The relationship between electronic and paper versions showed significant reliability for both the E-RS total score and CAT score (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.82 and 0.89, respectively; both p<0.001). However, both the E-RS total and CAT scores were significantly higher in the paper versions (p<0.05).

conclusionsIn both cases, the two versions of the same questionnaire cannot be used interchangeably even though they have both been validated.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Over StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMalePaperPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveReproducibility of Resultschronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)health statuspatient-reported outcome (PRO)the COPD assessment test (CAT)the evaluating respiratory symptoms in COPD (E-RS)

Identifiers

PMID31857313
PMCPMC6937099
OpenAlexW2995690763

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.