ArticleArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2021
Collection of the International Hip Outcome Tool-12 Using a Smartphone Application Format Is Faster and Preferred When Compared With the Paper Version: A Pilot Study of rHip.
Article in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Smartphone App Shows Patients Return to Preoperative Gait Metrics 6 Weeks After Hip Arthroscopy, and Gait Metrics Have Low to Moderate Correlations With a Hip-Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measure.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the agreeability between the mobile application-based International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) survey with the paper version, as well as compare the time it takes patients each of the versions, and patient preferences between the two.
methodsPatients seen with symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement syndrome were prospectively enrolled in February 2019 and completed both the paper and application-based iHOT-12, in randomized order. Outcomes scores and time to completion were recorded for each version, and patients were also asked which they preferred. Intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated to assess for absolute agreement between the 2 versions. Bland-Altman plots were constructed to evaluate the agreeability between paper and application-based iHOT-12 scores. Bland-Altman plots were evaluated to identify systematic bias and data stratification was performed to identify sequence bias between the application and paper-based collection modalities.
resultsTwenty-nine patients (aged15-56 years) completed both the paper and application-based versions of the iHOT-12. Between the application-based and paper versions, the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.98, and Bland-Altman analysis showed agreement without bias between versions. There was no sequence bias. Accounting for completion order, the application-based iHOT-12 was faster for patients when compared to the paper version (61.4 ± 20.3 vs 71.9 ± 23.6 seconds,
conclusionsThe application-based iHOT-12 demonstrated absolute agreement with the paper iHOT-12, and is faster for patients to complete. Patients preferred using the application-based iHOT-12 over the paper-based version. Application-based PROs allow for collection of patient data at more frequent time points, which may be helpful in tracking the recovery progress of patients and predicting outcomes. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: As electronic-based outcome surveys become more common, it is important to know how the results may differ from traditional paper-based surveys.
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.