ArticleArthroplasty today2024
Evaluation of a Mobile App to Assist Patient Education and Research in Arthroplasty.
Article in Arthroplasty today, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Are Currently Available Joint-Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Fit for Purpose to Assess the Outcome of Knee Arthroplasty?Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Paper-based patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient education can assist in improving outcomes but is administratively burdensome. Mobile phone applications ('apps') can distribute extensive information and PROMs at relevant time points. This study aimed to assess the suitability of an app to guide postoperative management and record PROMs based on satisfaction and compliance. Methods: Thirty-four patients who were scheduled for a total hip/knee arthroplasty were enrolled into the study. Automatic notifications were sent by the app to complete PROMs at the appropriate time points. Patients were reminded via phone call if PROMs were not completed. An app satisfaction questionnaire was also completed, where a high score represented satisfaction with the app. Results: Patients remained satisfied with the app throughout the study with a mean score of 19.0 out of 25. 57% found the app to be helpful with completing surveys, with 63% preferring the app over paper handouts. Majority of the participants (68%) stated that they would use the app again. There was an overall mean compliance of 78% at all time points. Most patients (82%) required at least one phone call reminder, with 18% of patients completing their PROMs prompted by the app notification alone. Conclusions: A mobile phone app can be useful for both distributing patient education and collecting PROMs. PROMs collected using a mobile phone app still caused some administrative burden with many participants requiring multiple reminders to complete their questionnaires. While paper-forms will still be required for some patients, most found the app preferable to paper-form.
Indexed as
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.