Trial reportHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2024
Validating the Q1.6 Inguinal Hernia application using prospective data from a randomised clinical trial.
Trial report in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2024. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe Q1.6 Inguinal Hernia application remotely and continuously collects patient-reported outcomes from inguinal hernia patients. Previous research has explored its technical, legal, and ethical aspects, along with face, content, and construct validity assessments. This study aims to examine its concurrent validity by comparing prospective data with that from the ENTREPPMENT trial, a randomised study.
methodsA small cohort of patients participating in the ENTREPPMENT trial were asked to use the Q1.6 application in addition to their standard care. Corresponding prospective data points, in terms of content and timing relative to the operation date, were identified. Correlation coefficients were calculated for matching variables, and a repeated measures model was created to analyse pain and limitation measures during the first two postoperative weeks.
resultsTwenty-eight patients were analysed. Preoperative variables, such as hernia side and painkiller use, demonstrated a predominantly high level of agreement between the two measurement methods, ranging from 'substantial' (0.61-0.8) to 'perfect' (1.0) agreement. Evaluating immediate postoperative outcomes, including pain and limitation scores, revealed a prevalent 'substantial' (0.61-0.8) to 'almost perfect' (0.81-1.0) agreement. In a repeated measures model, the overall within-subjects correlation demonstrated levels of agreement ranging from 'moderate' (0.41-0.6) to 'almost perfect' (0.81-1.0).
conclusionThis study demonstrates strong agreement between data from the Q1.6 Inguinal Hernia application and the ENTREPPMENT trial, supporting its concurrent validity. This makes the application a reliable tool for collecting PROs before and immediately after inguinal hernia repair, offering a promising alternative to traditional follow-up methods. Future research will focus on enhancing compliance and refining functionality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39666222What 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.