Electronic Data Capture Versus Conventional Data Collection Methods in Clinical Pain Studies: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
data collection
efficiency
electronic
meta-analysis
pain
systematic review
Journal
Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 06 2020
16 06 2020
Historique:
received:
16
10
2019
accepted:
22
03
2020
revised:
21
01
2020
pubmed:
30
4
2020
medline:
17
12
2020
entrez:
30
4
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The most commonly used means to assess pain is by patient self-reported questionnaires. These questionnaires have traditionally been completed using paper-and-pencil, telephone, or in-person methods, which may limit the validity of the collected data. Electronic data capture methods represent a potential way to validly, reliably, and feasibly collect pain-related data from patients in both clinical and research settings. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare electronic and conventional pain-related data collection methods with respect to pain score equivalence, data completeness, ease of use, efficiency, and acceptability between methods. We searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from database inception until November 2019. We included all peer-reviewed studies that compared electronic (any modality) and conventional (paper-, telephone-, or in-person-based) data capture methods for patient-reported pain data on one of the following outcomes: pain score equivalence, data completeness, ease of use, efficiency, and acceptability. We used random effects models to combine score equivalence data across studies that reported correlations or measures of agreement between electronic and conventional pain assessment methods. A total of 53 unique studies were included in this systematic review, of which 21 were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the pain scores reported electronically were congruent with those reported using conventional modalities, with the majority of studies (36/44, 82%) that reported on pain scores demonstrating this relationship. The weighted summary correlation coefficient of pain score equivalence from our meta-analysis was 0.92 (95% CI 0.88-0.95). Studies on data completeness, patient- or provider-reported ease of use, and efficiency generally indicated that electronic data capture methods were equivalent or superior to conventional methods. Most (19/23, 83%) studies that directly surveyed patients reported that the electronic format was the preferred data collection method. Electronic pain-related data capture methods are comparable with conventional methods in terms of score equivalence, data completeness, ease, efficiency, and acceptability and, if the appropriate psychometric evaluations are in place, are a feasible means to collect pain data in clinical and research settings.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The most commonly used means to assess pain is by patient self-reported questionnaires. These questionnaires have traditionally been completed using paper-and-pencil, telephone, or in-person methods, which may limit the validity of the collected data. Electronic data capture methods represent a potential way to validly, reliably, and feasibly collect pain-related data from patients in both clinical and research settings.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare electronic and conventional pain-related data collection methods with respect to pain score equivalence, data completeness, ease of use, efficiency, and acceptability between methods.
METHODS
We searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from database inception until November 2019. We included all peer-reviewed studies that compared electronic (any modality) and conventional (paper-, telephone-, or in-person-based) data capture methods for patient-reported pain data on one of the following outcomes: pain score equivalence, data completeness, ease of use, efficiency, and acceptability. We used random effects models to combine score equivalence data across studies that reported correlations or measures of agreement between electronic and conventional pain assessment methods.
RESULTS
A total of 53 unique studies were included in this systematic review, of which 21 were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the pain scores reported electronically were congruent with those reported using conventional modalities, with the majority of studies (36/44, 82%) that reported on pain scores demonstrating this relationship. The weighted summary correlation coefficient of pain score equivalence from our meta-analysis was 0.92 (95% CI 0.88-0.95). Studies on data completeness, patient- or provider-reported ease of use, and efficiency generally indicated that electronic data capture methods were equivalent or superior to conventional methods. Most (19/23, 83%) studies that directly surveyed patients reported that the electronic format was the preferred data collection method.
CONCLUSIONS
Electronic pain-related data capture methods are comparable with conventional methods in terms of score equivalence, data completeness, ease, efficiency, and acceptability and, if the appropriate psychometric evaluations are in place, are a feasible means to collect pain data in clinical and research settings.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32348259
pii: v22i6e16480
doi: 10.2196/16480
pmc: PMC7351264
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e16480Informations de copyright
©Lindsay A Jibb, James S Khan, Puneet Seth, Chitra Lalloo, Lauren Mulrooney, Kathryn Nicholson, Dominik A Nowak, Harneel Kaur, Alyssandra Chee-A-Tow, Joel Foster, Jennifer N Stinson. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 16.06.2020.
Références
Physiotherapy. 2014 Dec;100(4):356-62
pubmed: 24679373
Headache. 2017 Nov;57(10):1551-1569
pubmed: 28925498
J Med Internet Res. 2004 Sep 15;6(3):e29
pubmed: 15471755
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010 Jun 08;11:113
pubmed: 20529332
IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed. 2005 Sep;9(3):447-58
pubmed: 16167699
Pain Med. 2007 Oct;8 Suppl 3:S101-9
pubmed: 17877520
Clin J Pain. 2010 Oct;26(8):667-76
pubmed: 20664341
Value Health. 2008 Mar-Apr;11(2):322-33
pubmed: 18380645
Rheumatol Int. 2015 Dec;35(12):2029-35
pubmed: 26346588
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2006 May 31;6:23
pubmed: 16737535
Curr Med Res Opin. 2006 Mar;22(3):529-37
pubmed: 16574036
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 18;151(4):264-9, W64
pubmed: 19622511
Transl Behav Med. 2013 Dec;3(4):392-401
pubmed: 24294327
Paediatr Anaesth. 2015 Dec;25(12):1264-73
pubmed: 26507916
Clin J Pain. 2007 Nov-Dec;23(9):804-11
pubmed: 18075409
Ann Rheum Dis. 2005 Oct;64(10):1480-4
pubmed: 15843456
Spine J. 2016 Jul;16(7):843-50
pubmed: 26961200
Arthritis Rheum. 2007 Apr 15;57(3):454-60
pubmed: 17394232
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2015 Nov;67(11):1553-60
pubmed: 26018634
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2010 Sep;40(3):391-404
pubmed: 20580526
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017 Dec 1;17(1):153
pubmed: 29191176
Hemoglobin. 2015;39(3):162-8
pubmed: 25831427
Pain. 2015 Dec;156(12):2607-15
pubmed: 26580680
PeerJ. 2018 Mar 8;6:e4406
pubmed: 29568700
J Pain. 2016 Oct;17(10):1068-1080
pubmed: 27377620
Pain. 2005 Jan;113(1-2):9-19
pubmed: 15621359
Value Health. 2018 May;21(5):581-589
pubmed: 29753356
J Pain. 2006 Mar;7(3):192-9
pubmed: 16516825
Clin J Pain. 2014 Dec;30(12):1044-50
pubmed: 24535055
Pain. 2002 Sep;99(1-2):341-7
pubmed: 12237213
BMC Pediatr. 2011 Oct 12;11:87
pubmed: 21989306
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Apr 16;14:52
pubmed: 24735061
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jul 27;(7):MR000042
pubmed: 26212714
Clin J Pain. 2015 Mar;31(3):229-34
pubmed: 24699160
Can J Anaesth. 2003 Apr;50(4):368-75
pubmed: 12670814
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2014 Jan;47(1):45-56
pubmed: 23856098
Pediatr Rheumatol Online J. 2012 Apr 10;10(1):7
pubmed: 22490427
J Pain. 2011 Feb;12(2):228-35
pubmed: 20817615
Haemophilia. 2004 Nov;10(6):698-704
pubmed: 15569164
J Pain. 2010 Dec;11(12):1451-60
pubmed: 20646966
Pain. 2004 Jul;110(1-2):310-7
pubmed: 15275781
J Headache Pain. 2012 Oct;13(7):537-41
pubmed: 22842873
Eur J Pain. 2014 Jul;18(6):862-72
pubmed: 24921074
Pain Pract. 2005 Jun;5(2):85-94
pubmed: 17177754
Pain. 2001 Apr;91(3):277-85
pubmed: 11275385
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2004 Sep;28(3):259-67
pubmed: 15336338
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019 Jan 25;19(1):24
pubmed: 30683106
Support Care Cancer. 2014 Sep;22(9):2425-34
pubmed: 24705855
Pain Med. 2015 Oct;16(10):1982-92
pubmed: 26176297
J Rheumatol. 2004 Feb;31(2):223-8
pubmed: 14760788
Pain. 2003 Jul;104(1-2):343-51
pubmed: 12855344
Pain. 2001 Oct;94(1):85-100
pubmed: 11576748
J Pain. 2008 Sep;9(9):771-83
pubmed: 18562251
Value Health. 2013 Jun;16(4):480-9
pubmed: 23796281
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Dec;67(12):1358-63
pubmed: 25135245
J Orthop Res. 2002 Nov;20(6):1146-51
pubmed: 12472221
Pain. 2008 Jun;136(3):281-92
pubmed: 17723279
Can J Anaesth. 2019 Jun;66(6):706-715
pubmed: 30796700
J Pain. 2018 Jul;19(7):699-716
pubmed: 29371113
Pain. 2004 Feb;107(3):213-9
pubmed: 14736583
Neurol Res. 2017 Apr;39(4):292-297
pubmed: 28337948
Pain. 2003 May;103(1-2):11-20
pubmed: 12749954
Clin J Pain. 2018 Oct;34(10):900-908
pubmed: 29659375
Value Health. 2011 Mar-Apr;14(2):316-21
pubmed: 21402299
Pain Med. 2007 Oct;8 Suppl 3:S121-8
pubmed: 17877522
Curr Med Res Opin. 2008 Jun;24(6):1797-806
pubmed: 18485269
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
PLoS One. 2011;6(9):e25348
pubmed: 21966505
Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2012;9:1-10
pubmed: 23209453
BMJ. 2002 May 18;324(7347):1193-4
pubmed: 12016186
J Rheumatol. 2011 Dec;38(12):2619-24
pubmed: 22045844
Int J Telemed Appl. 2012;2012:945745
pubmed: 23193395
Scand J Rheumatol. 2019 Jul;48(4):326-330
pubmed: 30758242
Scand J Rheumatol. 2015;44(6):503-10
pubmed: 26114582
BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60
pubmed: 12958120