ArticleHand (New York, N.Y.)2023
Validation of a Smartphone-Based Institutional Electronic Data Capture System for Thumb Carpometacarpal Joint Arthroplasty.
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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Orthopaedic Minimal Data Set (OrthoMiDaS) Episode of care (OME) is a prospectively collected database enabling capture of patient and surgeon-reported data in a more efficient, comprehensive, and dependable manner than electronic medical record (EMR) review. We aimed to assess and validate the OME as a data capture tool for carpometacarpal (CMC) arthroplasty compared to traditional EMR-based review. Specifically, we aimed to: (1) compare the completeness of the OME versus EMR data; and (2) evaluate the extent of agreement between the OME and EMR data-based datasets for carpometacarpal (CMC) arthroplasty.
methodsThe first 100 thumb CMC arthroplasties after OME inception (Febuary, 2015) were included. Blinded EMR-based review of the same cases was performedfor 48 perioperative variables and compared to their OME-sourced counterparts. Outcomes included completion rates and agreement measures in OME versus EMR-based control datasets.
resultsThe OME demonstrated superior completion rates compared to EMR-based retrospective review. There was high agreement between both datasets where 75.6% (34/45) had an agreement proportion of >0.90% and 82.2% (37/45) had an agreement proportion of >0.80. Over 40% of the variables had almost perfect to substantial agreement (κ > 0.60). Among the 6 variables demonstrating poor agreement, the surgeon-inputted OME values were more accurate than the EMR-based review control.
conclusionsThis study validates the use of the OME for CMC arthroplasty by illustrating that it is reliably able to match or supersede traditional chart review for data collection; thereby offering a high-quality tool for future CMC arthroplasty studies.
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.