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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |