ArticleFrontiers in digital health2025
Ecological momentary assessments for patients with hereditary angioedema: a feasibility and acceptability controlled study.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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
Introduction: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare disease imposing a significant quality of life burden. Affect monitoring via Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) could offer personalized psychological support by collecting repeated, ecological data in real-life, overcoming the limitations of traditional methods. This study assessed the feasibility and acceptability of an EMA protocol for affect monitoring in HAE patients vs. healthy controls (CTR). Methods: HAE patients and CTR were recruited for a 16-week EMA study. Participants received weekly EMA surveys assessing affect via REDCap™. Feasibility was evaluated through recruitment, response, and completion rates. Acceptability was assessed via a post-study questionnaire through a visual analogue scale ranging from 1 to 100. Results: Twenty-eight Caucasian subjects were contacted, 12 HAE [median age: 50 (22) years, 5 males] and 14 CTR [age: 30 (32) years, 6 males] agreed to participate, resulting in a recruitment rate of 93%. Response and completion rates were ≥92% and ≥96% respectively in both groups. Completion time was brief and did not differ between groups [HAE: 1' 28″ (29″) vs. CTR: 1' 15' (15″), Conclusion: EMA is a highly feasible and acceptable method for affect monitoring in HAE. The presence of a rare disease does not appear to be a barrier to its application, supporting its use in this clinical setting.
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.