Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35482392›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2022

A Web-Based Communication Tool for Postoperative Follow-up and Pain Assessment at Home After Primary Knee Arthroplasty: Feasibility and Usability Study.

Torbjørn Rian, Kari Sand, Eirik Skogvoll, Pål Klepstad, Tina S Wik

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02604446 (Depot-opioids for Pre- and Postoperative Pain Relief After Primary Knee Arthroplasty. A Double Blinded Randomized Controlled Study. Tapentadol vs Oxycodone vs Placebo), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT02604446 phase3completednot on this map

Depot-opioids for Pre- and Postoperative Pain Relief After Primary Knee Arthroplasty. A Double Blinded Randomized Controlled Study. Tapentadol vs Oxycodone vs Placebo

TypeinterventionalSponsorSt. Olavs HospitalRan2015 to 2019Enrolled134ConditionsJoint DiseasesArmsTapentadol, Oxycodone, Placebo, usual pain treatment
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Torbjørn RianDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1808-6266
Kari SandDepartment of Health Research, SINTEF Digital, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8391-2990
Eirik SkogvollDepartment of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6984-0708
Pål KlepstadDepartment of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2804-8447
Tina S WikDepartment of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7317-5475
Norwegian University of Science and Technology · NOSINTEF · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe report the use of an electronic tool, Eir (Eir Solutions AS, Norway), for symptom registration at home after knee arthroplasty. This electronic tool was used in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing 3 different analgesic regimens with respect to postoperative pain and side effects.

objectiveThe aim of this substudy was to investigate this electronic tool for symptom registrations at home with respect to usability (ie, how easy it was to use) and feasibility (ie, how well the tool served its purpose).

methodsTo assess the tool's usability, all participants were invited to fill out the 10-item System Usability Scale (SUS) after using the tool for 8 days. To assess feasibility, data regarding the participants' ability to use the tool with or without assistance or reminders were collected qualitatively on a daily basis during the study period.

resultsA total of 134 patients completed the RCT. Data concerning feasibility of the web-based tool were collected from all 134 patients. The SUS was completed by 119 of the 134 patients; 70.2% (94/134) of the patients managed to use the tool at home without any technical support. All technical challenges were related to the login procedure or internet access. The mean SUS score was 89.6 (median 92.5; range 22.5-100).

conclusionsThis study showed high feasibility and high usability of the Eir web tool. The received reports gave the necessary information needed for both research data and clinical follow-up.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02604446; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02604446.

Indexed as

feasibility studiesfollow-up at homemobile applicationpain treatmentpostoperative follow-upprimary knee arthroplasty, pain assessment

Identifiers

PMID35482392
PMCPMC9100538
OpenAlexW4225088758

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.