ArticleJMIR formative research2021
Digital Instruments for Reporting of Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Clinical Trials: Comparison of End-of-Day Diaries Versus the Experience Sampling Method.
Article in JMIR formative research, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundQuestionnaires are necessary tools for assessing symptoms of disorders of the brain-gut interaction in clinical trials. We previously reported on the excellent adherence to a smartphone app used as symptom diary in a randomized clinical trial on irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Other sampling methods, such as the experience sampling method (ESM), are better equipped to measure symptom variability over time and provide useful information regarding possible symptom triggers, and they are free of ecological and recall bias. The high frequency of measurements, however, could limit the feasibility of ESM in clinical trials.
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the adherence rates of a smartphone-based end-of-day diary and ESM for symptom assessment in IBS and functional dyspepsia (FD).
methodsData from 4 separate studies were included. Patients with IBS participated in a randomized controlled trial, which involved a smartphone end-of-day diary for a 2+8-week (pretreatment + treatment) period, and an observational study in which patients completed ESM assessments using a smartphone app for 1 week. Patients with FD participated in a randomized controlled trial, which involved a smartphone end-of-day diary for a 2+12-week (pretreatment + treatment) period, and an observational study in which patients completed ESM assessments using a smartphone app for 1 week. Adherence rates were compared between these 2 symptom sampling methods.
resultsIn total, 25 patients with IBS and 15 patients with FD were included. Overall adherence rates for the end-of-day diaries were significantly higher than those for ESM (IBS: 92.7% vs 69.8%, FD: 90.1% vs 61.4%, respectively).
conclusionsThis study demonstrates excellent adherence rates for smartphone app-based end-of-day diaries as used in 2 separate clinical trials. Overall adherence rates for ESM were significantly lower, rendering it more suitable for intermittent sampling periods rather than continuous sampling during longer clinical trials.
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.