ArticleRMD open2025
Collecting patient-reported outcomes via the COTIDIANA smartphone app: a prospective validity study.
Article in RMD open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSelf-management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases often involves regular assessments of disease-related outcomes. In recent years, smartphone apps are used to collect electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROMs), supporting the self-management process and improvement of health-related quality of life. We aimed to assess the reliability and comparability of frequent remote monitoring by using ePROMs via a smartphone.
methodsPatients (≥18 years) with Sjögren's disease (SjD), osteoarthritis (OA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) were recruited from our outpatient clinic and asked to complete seven short daily as well as weekly questions (visual analogue scale) on global disease activity (PGA), pain, anxiety and depression, fatigue and sleep) for 14 days. To assess reliability, intraclass correlation (ICC) for 1-6-day test-retest intervals, as well as the smallest detectable difference (SDDs), were calculated. Convergent validity was evaluated via correlation of daily and weekly ePROMs.
results48 patients (76.12% female: 18 SjD, 20 PsA, 10 OA) were included for analyses. At the 1-day test-retest interval, ICCs ranged between 0.84 and 0.89 and SDDs from 1.04 to 2.10, for all domains. The 6-day interval presented wider reliability with ICCs from 0.23 to 0.73 and SDDs from 1.89 to 2.88. While all measures demonstrated high test-retest reliability during the 1-, 2- and 3-day intervals (ICC: 0.83-0.98), an increase in SDDs and a decrease in ICCs were observed as intervals extended. Daily measured ePROMs highly correlated with its corresponding weekly ePROM (pain=0.97, anxiety and depression=0.94, fatigue=0.90, sleep=0.95, PGA=0.94).
conclusionReliability was particularly stable at shorter intervals with more variation over time. Convergent validity was high between daily and weekly assessment. Short ePROMs collected via smartphones may offer flexibility to vary assessment times while maintaining consistent reliability.
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.