ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023
Smartphone App-Based and Paper-Based Patient-Reported Outcomes Using a Disease-Specific Questionnaire for Dry Eye Disease: Randomized Crossover Equivalence Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of 25 Years of Mobile Health Tools for Pain Management in Patients With Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Characteristics of self-reported asthenopia in a large-scale crowdsourced study using the smartphone application DryEyeRhythm.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A Narrative Review on the Diagnosis of Dry Eye Disease: Insights from the Italian Dry Eye Consensus (IDEC) Group.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Review
- Integration of Digital Phenotyping and Genomics for Dry Eye Disease: Protocol for a Prospective Cohort Study.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Patients' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding lifestyle related dry eye.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Minimal Clinically Important Differences With the Outcomes of the App-Based Japanese Allergic Conjunctival Diseases Quality of Life Questionnaire: Cross-Sectional Observational Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Observational
- Ocular complications in adults with psoriasis: a cross-sectional study in a referral center in Brazil.International ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Clinical utility of maximum blink interval measured by smartphone application DryEyeRhythm to support dry eye disease diagnosis.Scientific reports · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUsing traditional patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as paper-based questionnaires, is cumbersome in the era of web-based medical consultation and telemedicine. Electronic PROs may reduce the burden on patients if implemented widely. Considering promising reports of DryEyeRhythm, our in-house mHealth smartphone app for investigating dry eye disease (DED) and the electronic and paper-based Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) should be evaluated and compared to determine their equivalency.
objectiveThe purpose of this study is to assess the equivalence between smartphone app-based and paper-based questionnaires for DED.
methodsThis prospective, nonblinded, randomized crossover study enrolled 34 participants between April 2022 and June 2022 at a university hospital in Japan. The participants were allocated randomly into 2 groups in a 1:1 ratio. The paper-app group initially responded to the paper-based Japanese version of the OSDI (J-OSDI), followed by the app-based J-OSDI. The app-paper group responded to similar questionnaires but in reverse order. We performed an equivalence test based on minimal clinically important differences to assess the equivalence of the J-OSDI total scores between the 2 platforms (paper-based vs app-based). A 95% CI of the mean difference between the J-OSDI total scores within the ±7.0 range between the 2 platforms indicated equivalence. The internal consistency and agreement of the app-based J-OSDI were assessed with Cronbach α coefficients and intraclass correlation coefficient values.
resultsA total of 33 participants were included in this study. The total scores for the app- and paper-based J-OSDI indicated satisfactory equivalence per our study definition (mean difference 1.8, 95% CI -1.4 to 5.0). Moreover, the app-based J-OSDI total score demonstrated good internal consistency and agreement (Cronbach α=.958; intraclass correlation=0.919; 95% CI 0.842 to 0.959) and was significantly correlated with its paper-based counterpart (Pearson correlation=0.932, P<.001).
conclusionsThis study demonstrated the equivalence of PROs between the app- and paper-based J-OSDI. Implementing the app-based J-OSDI in various scenarios, including telehealth, may have implications for the early diagnosis of DED and longitudinal monitoring of PROs.
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.