ArticleHand (New York, N.Y.)2023
Validation of a Novel Smartphone-Based Electronic Data Capture System Following Surgical Fixation of Distal Radial Fractures.
Article in Hand (New York, N.Y.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLarge prospective institutional data provide the opportunity to conduct level II and III studies using robust methodologies and adequately powered sample-sizes, while circumventing limitations of retrospective databases. We aimed to validate a prospective data collection tool, the Orthopaedic Minimal Data Set Episode of Care (OME), implemented at a tertiary North American health care system for distal radial fracture (DRF) open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF).
methodsThe first 100 DRF ORIFs performed after OME inception (February 2015) were selected for this validation study. A blinded review of the operative notes and charts was performed, and extracted data of 75 perioperative DRF ORIF procedure variables were compared with OME collected data for agreement. Outcomes included completion rates and agreement measures in OME versus electronic medical record (EMR)-based control datasets. Data counts were evaluated using raw percentages and McNemar tests. Cohen (κ) and concordance correlation coefficient analyzed categorical and numerical variable agreement, respectively.
resultsOverall, OME demonstrated superior completion and agreement parameters versus EMR-based retrospective review. Nine data points (12.0%) demonstrated significantly higher completion rates within the OME dataset (
conclusionsThe OME is a valid and accurate prospective data collection tool for DRF ORIF that is reliably able to match or supersede traditional retrospective chart review. Future investigations could use this tool for large-scale analyses investigating peri/intraoperative DRF ORIF variables.
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.