Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32414368›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical informatics and decision making2020

Preparing for an orthopedic consultation using an eHealth tool: a randomized controlled trial in patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis.

Aniek A O M Claassen, Henk J Schers, Vincent J J F Busch, Petra J C Heesterbeek, Frank H J van den Hoogen, Thea P M Vliet Vlieland, Cornelia H M van den Ende

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Orthopaedic, trauma surgery, and Covid-2019 pandemic: clinical panorama and future prospective in Europe.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Factors influencing online orthopedic doctor-patient consultations.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021
    Article
  5. 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

7 authors.

Aniek A O M ClaassenDepartment of Rheumatology, Sint Maartenskliniek, PO Box 9011, Nijmegen, GM, 6500, The Netherlands. a.claassen@maartenskliniek.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-6337-3734
Henk J SchersDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Vincent J J F BuschDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Petra J C HeesterbeekSint Maartenskliniek Research, Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Frank H J van den HoogenDepartment of Rheumatology, Sint Maartenskliniek, PO Box 9011, Nijmegen, GM, 6500, The Netherlands.
Thea P M Vliet VlielandDepartment of Orthopaedics, Rehabilitation and Physical Therapy, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Cornelia H M van den EndeDepartment of Rheumatology, Sint Maartenskliniek, PO Box 9011, Nijmegen, GM, 6500, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo evaluate the effect of a stand-alone mobile and web-based educational intervention (eHealth tool) compared to usual preparation of a first orthopedic consultation of patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA) on patients' satisfaction.

methodsA two-armed randomized controlled trial involving 286 patients with (suspicion of) hip or knee OA, randomly allocated to either receiving an educational eHealth tool to prepare their upcoming consultation (n = 144) or usual care (n = 142). Satisfaction with the consultation on three subscales (range 1-4) of the Consumer Quality Index (CQI - primary outcome) and knowledge (assessed using 22 statements on OA, range 0-22), treatment beliefs (assessed by the Treatment beliefs in OsteoArthritis questionnaire, range 1-5), assessment of patient's involvement in consultation by the surgeon (assessed on a 5-point Likert scale) and patient satisfaction with the outcome of the consultation (numeric rating scale), were assessed.

resultsNo differences between groups were observed on the 3 subscales of the CQI (group difference (95% CI): communication 0.009 (- 0.10, 0.12), conduct - 0.02 (- 0.12, 0.07) and information provision 0.02 (- 0.18, 0.21)). Between group differences (95% CI) were in favor of the intervention group for knowledge (1.4 (0.6, 2.2)), negative beliefs regarding physical activities (- 0.19 (- 0.37, - 0.002) and pain medication (- 0.30 (- 0.49, - 0.01)). We found no differences on other secondary outcomes.

conclusionsAn educational eHealth tool to prepare a first orthopedic consultation for hip or knee OA does not result in higher patient satisfaction with the consultation, but it does influence cognitions about osteoarthritis.

trial registrationDutch Trial Register (trial number NTR6262). Registered 30 January 2017.

Indexed as

Osteoarthritis, HipOsteoarthritis, KneeTelemedicineAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatientsReferral and ConsultationTreatment OutcomeConsultationEducationeHealthHip and knee osteoarthritisPreparation

Identifiers

PMID32414368
PMCPMC7229631

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.