ArticleSeminars in arthroplasty2021
Effectiveness of a Web-Based Electronic Prospective Data Collection Tool for Surgical Data in Shoulder Arthroplasty.
Article in Seminars in arthroplasty, 2021. 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.
- Disease diagnosis and arthroplasty type are strongly associated with short-term postoperative patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing primary total shoulder arthroplasty.Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery · 2024Article
- Surgical Case Logging-Orthopaedic Application: A Narrative Review of Methods, Evolution, and Future Direction.JB & JS open accessReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to demonstrate the validity and efficiency of the Outcomes Management and Evaluation (OME) system, a prospectively designed electronic data collection tool, for collecting comprehensive and standardized surgical data in shoulder arthroplasty.
methodsSurgical data from the first 100 cases of shoulder arthroplasty that were collected into the OME database were analyzed. Surgeons completed a traditional narrative operative note and also an OME case report using an encrypted smartphone. A blinded reviewer extracted data from the operative notes and implant logs in the electronic medical records (EMR) by manual chart review. OME and EMR data were compared with regard to data counts and agreement between 39 variables related to preoperative pathology, including rotator cuff status and glenoid wear, and surgical procedures. Data counts were assessed using both raw percentages and with McNemar's test (with continuity correction). Agreement of nominal variables was analyzed using Cohen's unweighted kappa (κ) and of ordinal variables using the linearly weighted Cohen's test. Efficiency was assessed by calculating the median time needed to complete OME.
resultsCompared to the EMR, the OME database had significantly higher data counts for 56% (22 of 39) of the variables assessed. A high level of proportional and statistical agreement was demonstrated between the data in the two datasets. 10 of 39 variables had 100% agreement but could not be statistically compared because both datasets had the same single response under those variables. Among the 29 variables that were compared, 79% (23 of 29) of variables had >80% raw proportional agreement, and 69% (20 of 29) of variables showed at least substantial agreement (κ > 0.6). The median time for completing OME surgery data entry was 92 seconds (IQR 70 - 126).
conclusionThe prospectively designed, electronic data entry system (OME) is an efficient and valid tool for collecting comprehensive and standardized surgical data on shoulder arthroplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.
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.