Trial reportNeurourology and urodynamics2020
Performance, acceptability, and validation of a phone application bowel diary.
Trial report in Neurourology and urodynamics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Correlation Between Mobile-Application Electronic Bowel Diary and Validated Questionnaires in Women with Fecal Incontinence.International urogynecology journal · 2024Trial
- Characteristics associated with subjective and objective measures of treatment success in women undergoing percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation vs sham for accidental bowel leakage.International urogynecology journal · 2023Trial
- Usability evaluation of the Computer-Based Health Evaluation System (CHES) eDiary for patients with faecal incontinence: a pilot study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
- Design of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Percutaneous Posterior Tibial Nerve Stimulation for the Treatment of Refractory Fecal Incontinence in Women: The NeurOmodulaTion for Accidental Bowel Leakage Study.Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsTo assess performance, acceptability, external validity, and reliability of a phone application electronic bowel diary (PFDN Bowel eDiary).
methodsWomen reporting refractory accidental bowel leakage (ABL) were enrolled in a randomized, crossover trial evaluating paper versus eDiary documentation of bowel movements (BM) and fecal incontinence episodes (FIE). Events were characterized by the presence or absence of urgency and Bristol stool scale consistency. The eDiary entries were date/time stamped and prompted by twice-daily phone notifications. Women were randomized to complete up to three consecutive 14-day diaries in two sequences. Diary events were compared between formats using the Pearson correlation. System usability scale (SUS) assessed eDiary usability. The eDiary test-retest reliability was assessed with intraclass correlations (ICCs).
resultsPaired diary data were available from 60/69 (87%) women 63.8 ± 9.8 years old with mean 13.2 BM per week and 6.5 FIE per week (nearly half with urgency). Among those providing diaries, adherence did not differ by paper or eDiary (93.3% vs. 95.0%). Notifications prompted 29.6% of eDiary entries, improving adherence from 70% to 95%. Paper and eDiaries were moderate to-strongly correlated for BMs per week (r = .61), urgency BMs per week (r = .76), FIE per week (r = .66), urgency FIE per week (r = .72). Test-retest reliability was good (ICC = .81 BMs per week, .79 urgency BMs per week, .74 FIE per week, and .62 urgency FIE per week). The mean SUS score was high, 82.3 ± 17.5 (range, 0-100) with 91.4% rating it easy to use, and 75.9% preferring the eDiary over paper.
conclusionThe PFDN Bowel eDiary correlated well with paper diary was considered easy to use, preferred to paper diaries, had high rates of confirmed real-time diary completion that obviated staff data entry.
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.