Cargando…

A review of randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of hand held computers with paper methods for data collection

BACKGROUND: Handheld computers are increasingly favoured over paper and pencil methods to capture data in clinical research. METHODS: This study systematically identified and reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the two methods for self-recording and reporting data, and where a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lane, Shannon J, Heddle, Nancy M, Arnold, Emmy, Walker, Irwin
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2006
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1513201/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16737535
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-6-23
_version_ 1782128455824965632
author Lane, Shannon J
Heddle, Nancy M
Arnold, Emmy
Walker, Irwin
author_facet Lane, Shannon J
Heddle, Nancy M
Arnold, Emmy
Walker, Irwin
author_sort Lane, Shannon J
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Handheld computers are increasingly favoured over paper and pencil methods to capture data in clinical research. METHODS: This study systematically identified and reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the two methods for self-recording and reporting data, and where at least one of the following outcomes was assessed: data accuracy; timeliness of data capture; and adherence to protocols for data collection. RESULTS: A comprehensive key word search of NLM Gateway's database yielded 9 studies fitting the criteria for inclusion. Data extraction was performed and checked by two of the authors. None of the studies included all outcomes. The results overall, favor handheld computers over paper and pencil for data collection among study participants but the data are not uniform for the different outcomes. Handheld computers appear superior in timeliness of receipt and data handling (four of four studies) and are preferred by most subjects (three of four studies). On the other hand, only one of the trials adequately compared adherence to instructions for recording and submission of data (handheld computers were superior), and comparisons of accuracy were inconsistent between five studies. CONCLUSION: Handhelds are an effective alternative to paper and pencil modes of data collection; they are faster and were preferred by most users.
format Text
id pubmed-1513201
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2006
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-15132012006-07-20 A review of randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of hand held computers with paper methods for data collection Lane, Shannon J Heddle, Nancy M Arnold, Emmy Walker, Irwin BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Research Article BACKGROUND: Handheld computers are increasingly favoured over paper and pencil methods to capture data in clinical research. METHODS: This study systematically identified and reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the two methods for self-recording and reporting data, and where at least one of the following outcomes was assessed: data accuracy; timeliness of data capture; and adherence to protocols for data collection. RESULTS: A comprehensive key word search of NLM Gateway's database yielded 9 studies fitting the criteria for inclusion. Data extraction was performed and checked by two of the authors. None of the studies included all outcomes. The results overall, favor handheld computers over paper and pencil for data collection among study participants but the data are not uniform for the different outcomes. Handheld computers appear superior in timeliness of receipt and data handling (four of four studies) and are preferred by most subjects (three of four studies). On the other hand, only one of the trials adequately compared adherence to instructions for recording and submission of data (handheld computers were superior), and comparisons of accuracy were inconsistent between five studies. CONCLUSION: Handhelds are an effective alternative to paper and pencil modes of data collection; they are faster and were preferred by most users. BioMed Central 2006-05-31 /pmc/articles/PMC1513201/ /pubmed/16737535 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-6-23 Text en Copyright © 2006 Lane et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Lane, Shannon J
Heddle, Nancy M
Arnold, Emmy
Walker, Irwin
A review of randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of hand held computers with paper methods for data collection
title A review of randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of hand held computers with paper methods for data collection
title_full A review of randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of hand held computers with paper methods for data collection
title_fullStr A review of randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of hand held computers with paper methods for data collection
title_full_unstemmed A review of randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of hand held computers with paper methods for data collection
title_short A review of randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of hand held computers with paper methods for data collection
title_sort review of randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of hand held computers with paper methods for data collection
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1513201/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16737535
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-6-23
work_keys_str_mv AT laneshannonj areviewofrandomizedcontrolledtrialscomparingtheeffectivenessofhandheldcomputerswithpapermethodsfordatacollection
AT heddlenancym areviewofrandomizedcontrolledtrialscomparingtheeffectivenessofhandheldcomputerswithpapermethodsfordatacollection
AT arnoldemmy areviewofrandomizedcontrolledtrialscomparingtheeffectivenessofhandheldcomputerswithpapermethodsfordatacollection
AT walkerirwin areviewofrandomizedcontrolledtrialscomparingtheeffectivenessofhandheldcomputerswithpapermethodsfordatacollection
AT laneshannonj reviewofrandomizedcontrolledtrialscomparingtheeffectivenessofhandheldcomputerswithpapermethodsfordatacollection
AT heddlenancym reviewofrandomizedcontrolledtrialscomparingtheeffectivenessofhandheldcomputerswithpapermethodsfordatacollection
AT arnoldemmy reviewofrandomizedcontrolledtrialscomparingtheeffectivenessofhandheldcomputerswithpapermethodsfordatacollection
AT walkerirwin reviewofrandomizedcontrolledtrialscomparingtheeffectivenessofhandheldcomputerswithpapermethodsfordatacollection