MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319618480 · doi:10.1097/bpo.0000000000000716

Internet-administered Health-related Quality of Life Questionnaires Compared With Pen and Paper in an Adolescent Scoliosis Population: A Randomized Crossover Study

2016· article· en· W2319618480 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Nitikman, Kishore Mulpuri, Christopher W. Reilly

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Orthopaedics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicScoliosis diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThe InternetPhysical therapyScoliosisInformed consentQuality of life (healthcare)Test (biology)Randomized controlled trialPopulationFamily medicineCrossover studyAlternative medicineSurgeryNursingWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Modern technology puts into question the effectiveness of using pen and paper as a means of collecting information from web-enabled patients. This study aimed to validate and test the reliability of using the Internet as a method of administering health-related quality of life questionnaires in a pediatric spine population. METHODS: A prospective randomized crossover study was conducted. Patients aged 11 to 18 with idiopathic scoliosis were invited to participate, and informed consent was obtained from a scoliosis outpatient clinic setting. Participants were randomized to one of 4 groups determining the method of questionnaire administration [Scoliosis Research Society 30 (SRS-30) and Pediatric Outcomes Data Collection Instrument (PODCI)]. Both questionnaires were completed at 2 separate timepoints and 2 weeks apart to prevent recall bias. Groups included: Paper/Paper, Paper/Internet, Internet/Paper, and Internet/Internet. Paired-samples t tests were used to determine the test-retest reliability of each group. Analysis was stratified for surveys returned within or outside of the allotted 4-week timeframe following enrollment. RESULTS: Of the 96 participants who completed and returned both sets of questionnaires, 26 were allocated to the Paper/Paper group (27%), 20 to the Paper/Internet group (21%), 26 to the Internet/Paper group (27%), and 24 to the Internet/Internet group (25%). The second iteration of questionnaires was returned on time by 69 of the participants (71.2%). Of the late questionnaires, 18 (67%) were paper forms. Overall, no differences were observed between Internet-administered compared with pen and paper-administered questionnaires (P=0.206). No differences were observed within any group individually for either the SRS-30 or PODCI questionnaire. In addition, no significant differences were observed within groups for surveys returned within or outside of the 4-week timeframe. Eighty-four percent of the participants who completed both paper and Internet versions of the questionnaires reported a preference of the Internet. CONCLUSION: Internet administration of both the SRS-30 and PODCI questionnaires is a valid and reliable method of acquiring health-related quality of life information in this population LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:: Level II-therapeutic study.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric OrthopaedicsSame topicScoliosis diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207