Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36713021›Full record

ArticleEuropean heart journal. Digital health2022

Daily angina documentation versus subsequent recall: development of a symptom smartphone app.

Alexandra N Nowbar, James P Howard, Matthew J Shun-Shin, Christopher Rajkumar, Michael Foley, Arunima Basu, Akshit Goel, Sapna Patel, Ahmer Adnan, Catherine J Beattie and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European heart journal. Digital health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Implementing an ANOCA clinic.REC, interventional cardiology
    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

17 authors.

Alexandra N NowbarNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London W12 0HS, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7567-5975
James P HowardNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London W12 0HS, UK.
Matthew J Shun-ShinNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London W12 0HS, UK.
Christopher RajkumarNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London W12 0HS, UK.
Michael FoleyNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London W12 0HS, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0330-5542
Arunima BasuNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London W12 0HS, UK.
Akshit GoelNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London W12 0HS, UK.
Sapna PatelNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London W12 0HS, UK.
Ahmer AdnanNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London W12 0HS, UK.
Catherine J BeattieNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London W12 0HS, UK.
Thomas R KeebleEssex Cardiothoracic Centre, MSE Trust, Basildon, Essex, UK.
Afzal SohaibBarts Heart Centre, Barts Health NHS Trust, W Smithfield, London EC1A 7BE, UK.
David CollierWilliam Harvey Research Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Patrick McVeighNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London W12 0HS, UK.
Frank E HarrellDepartment of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA.
Darrel P FrancisNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London W12 0HS, UK.
Rasha K Al-LameeNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London W12 0HS, UK.

Funding

British Heart Foundation FS/ICRF/22/26039Medical Research Council MR/S021108/1Medical Research Council MR/V001620/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aims: The traditional approach to documenting angina outcomes in clinical trials is to ask the patient to recall their symptoms at the end of a month. With the ubiquitous availability of smartphones and tablets, daily contemporaneous documentation might be possible. Methods and results: The ORBITA-2 symptom smartphone app was developed with a user-centred iterative design and testing cycle involving a focus group of previous ORBITA participants. The feasibility and acceptability were assessed in an internal pilot of participants in the ongoing ORBITA-2 trial. Seven days of app entries by ORBITA-2 participants were compared with subsequent participant recall at the end of the 7-day period. The design focus group tested a prototype app. They reported that the final version captured their symptoms and was easy to use. In the completion assessment group, 141 of 142 (99%) completed the app in full and 47 of 141 (33%) without reminders. In the recall assessment group, 29 of 29 (100%) participants said they could recall the previous day's symptoms, and 82% of them recalled correctly. For 2 days previously, 88% said they could recall and of those, 87% recalled correctly. The proportion saying they could recall their symptoms fell progressively thereafter: 89, 67, 61, 50%, and at 7 days, 55% ( Conclusion: Episode counts of angina are difficult to recall after a few days. For trials such as ORBITA-2 focusing on angina, daily symptom collection via a smartphone app will increase the validity of the results.

Indexed as

AnginaFeasibilityMobile healthPatient involvementRecall biasSymptom app

Identifiers

PMID36713021
PMCPMC9707878

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.