ArticleACR open rheumatology2022
Patient-Reported Outcome Information Collected from Lupus Patients Using a Mobile Application: Compliance and Validation.
Article in ACR open rheumatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deucravacitinib, an oral, selective, allosteric, tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, in patients with active SLE: efficacy on patient-reported outcomes in a phase II randomised trial.Lupus science & medicine · 2025Trial
- Exploring digital health technology in rheumatology: a scoping review on benefits, challenges, and future possibilities.EULAR rheumatology open · 2026Review
- Remote Administration of Physical and Cognitive Performance Assessments in a Predominantly Black Cohort of Persons With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.ACR open rheumatology · 2023Article
- Lupus spectrum ambiguity has long-term negative implications for patients.Lupus science & medicine · 2023Article
- Health disparities in systemic lupus erythematosus-a narrative review.Clinical rheumatology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivePatient-reported outcomes (PROs) can provide critical information concerning the impact of a disease on an individual. Mobile technology to collect PRO data in an electronic format (ePRO) allows for frequent assessment in the person's regular environment. The goal of this study was to assess the compliance with a phone application (app) and validate ePRO information in individuals with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).
methodsA smartphone app that collects ePRO data from various clinical instruments was developed. Information was collected by both an ePRO and a paper-administered instrument as part of a multicenter randomized interventional clinical trial of patients meeting American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria for the classification of SLE. To determine agreement between PRO information collected in the different formats, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), paired Student's t tests, and Bland-Altman plots were evaluated. Compliance and Cronbach's alpha were also assessed as a measure of survey reliability.
resultsFor the 62 subjects from diverse ancestral backgrounds, compliance with ePRO completion was high (more than 75%). Cronbach alpha values for PROs indicated moderate to high survey reliability. The vast majority (73.4%) of ICC values were indicative of good to excellent reliability between measurement methods. Bland-Altman plots verified method agreement, and 87% of pairwise t tests yielded an insignificant difference between information collected with the different administration methods.
conclusionThe excellent compliance and the high level of consistency between data collected by paper and that collected by electronic methods indicate that the app provides a reliable means of cataloging real-time changes in PROs in SLE patients.
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.