SynthesisEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2025
Will patient data collection methods change after a pandemic? A systematic review of the strengths, challenges and opportunities of this new scenario.
Synthesis in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe evolution of survey methods in clinical research has been significantly shaped by technological advances and the global upheaval caused by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic. The use of traditional face-to-face interviews has been augmented, and in some cases replaced, by a range of remote interviewing techniques. This shift requires a comprehensive examination of the unique advantages, limitations, and future applications of these methods.
methodsThis study employs a systematic literature review, guided by PRISMA and Pati's criteria, to examine the nuances of face-to-face, remote, and mixed method interviewing.
resultsFrom an initial corpus of 2802 articles, 2632 were deemed relevant after applying specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The selection was then refined to 44 articles, which were then subjected to careful analysis. The results are presented as Social Visual Analysis graphs to explicit the relationship between methodologies (each interview technique) and its characteristics.
conclusionThe findings reveal the unique advantages and challenges associated with each interview technique, underscoring the complexity of selecting the most appropriate data collection method for clinical research. In particular, remote interviews are praised for their convenience and high acceptance rates, although they occasionally exhibit lower data quality and potential biases. Mixed-media approaches are emerging as a versatile solution, combining the benefits of different methods to provide a more flexible and comprehensive data collection process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40080187What 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.