Trial reportAlzheimer's research & therapy2020
Comparison of Instrumental Activities of Daily Living assessment by face-to-face or telephone interviews: a randomized, crossover study.
Trial report in Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02654574 (Comparison of Two Modes of Administration of the IADL Questionnaire), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 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.
Comparison of Two Modes of Administration of the IADL Questionnaire
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Well-being initiatives for hospital employees provided by the Dutch University Medical Centres: an exploratory study.BMJ leader · 2026Article
- Comparison of the 36-Item WHODAS 2.0 Functional Assessment in Older Adults by Face-to-Face or Telephone Interviews: A Randomised Crossover Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Functional Performance After Complex Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of endovascular therapy : an official journal of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists · 2021Article
- Transition from physical to virtual visit format for a longitudinal brain aging study, in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Operationalizing adaptive methods and challenges.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) · 2020Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe functional autonomy assessment is essential to manage patients with a neurodegenerative disease, but its evaluation is not always possible during a consultation. To optimize ambulatory autonomy assessment, we compared the Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) questionnaire collected by telephone and face-to-face interviews.
methodsA randomized, crossover study was carried out among patients attending a memory clinic (MC). The IADL questionnaire was collected for patients during telephone and face-to-face interviews between nurses and patients' caregivers. The agreement between the two methods was measured using the proportion of participants giving the same response, Cohen's kappa, intraclass correlation (ICC) coefficient, and Bland and Altman method. The associations between patients' characteristics, events occurring between the two assessments, and agreement were assessed.
resultsAmong the 292 patients (means ± SD age 81.5 ± 7, MMSE 19.6 ± 6, 39.7% with major neurocognitive disorders) analyzed, the proportion of agreement between the two modes was 89.4% for the total IADL score. Weighted kappa coefficient was 0.66 and ICC score was 0.91 for total IADL score. The mean difference between the IADL score by telephone or face-to-face was 0.32. Overall, 96.9% of measures lay within the 95% limits of agreement. The occurrence of fall was less likely associated with the probability to lie within the 95% limits of agreement (OR = 0.07 [0.02-0.27]).
conclusionThe administration of IADL by telephone with the caregiver appears to be an acceptable method of assessment for MC patients compared to face-to-face interview. The events such as falls which could occur in a time close to the evaluation should be reported. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02654574. Retrospectively registered: 13 January 2016.
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.