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

Shannon J Lane, Nancy M Heddle, Emmy Arnold, Irwin Walker
Author Information
  1. Shannon J Lane: Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.

Abstract

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.

References

  1. Clin Infect Dis. 2003 Apr 15;36(8):1018-29 [PMID: 12684915]
  2. CMAJ. 2003 Mar 18;168(6):727-34 [PMID: 12642430]
  3. Addiction. 2000 Aug;95(8):1185-95 [PMID: 11092066]
  4. J Burn Care Rehabil. 2000 Nov-Dec;21(6):559-61; discussion 558 [PMID: 11194811]
  5. Pain. 2001 Apr;91(3):277-85 [PMID: 11275385]
  6. Brain Inj. 2001 Sep;15(9):787-800 [PMID: 11516347]
  7. Int J Med Inform. 2001 Nov;64(1):39-56 [PMID: 11673101]
  8. Control Clin Trials. 2003 Apr;24(2):182-99 [PMID: 12689739]
  9. BJU Int. 2003 May;91(7):647-52 [PMID: 12699477]
  10. Eval Rev. 2003 Apr;27(2):165-78 [PMID: 12703341]
  11. Methods Inf Med. 2003;42(4):458-62 [PMID: 14534650]
  12. Control Clin Trials. 1990 Apr;11(2):101-15 [PMID: 2161309]
  13. Diabetes Care. 1991 Jul;14(7):602-4 [PMID: 1914803]
  14. BMJ. 1993 Feb 20;306(6876):487-9 [PMID: 8448458]
  15. Qual Life Res. 1995 Feb;4(1):21-6 [PMID: 7711686]
  16. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 1994;1(2):126-7 [PMID: 7728542]
  17. J Med Syst. 1996 Feb;20(1):19-34 [PMID: 8708489]
  18. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1996 Oct;42(4):475-81 [PMID: 8904620]
  19. Tob Control. 1996 Summer;5(2):114-20 [PMID: 8910992]
  20. J Reprod Med. 1996 Nov;41(11):801-6 [PMID: 8951128]
  21. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1997 Apr;65(2):292-300 [PMID: 9086693]
  22. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1998 Oct;52(10):737-41 [PMID: 9805221]
  23. MD Comput. 1998 Nov-Dec;15(6):352-4, 356, 358 [PMID: 9846058]
  24. Clin Ther. 1999 Jan;21(1):268-77 [PMID: 10090440]
  25. Med Care. 1999 Jul;37(7):647-51 [PMID: 10424635]
  26. JAMA. 1999 Aug 25;282(8):750-4 [PMID: 10463710]
  27. Haemophilia. 2004 Nov;10(6):698-704 [PMID: 15569164]
  28. Haemophilia. 2005 May;11(3):216-26 [PMID: 15876266]
  29. Int J Rehabil Res. 2001 Dec;24(4):299-308 [PMID: 11775034]
  30. Qual Life Res. 2001;10(8):683-91 [PMID: 11871589]
  31. Comput Biol Med. 2002 May;32(3):141-9 [PMID: 11922931]
  32. J Med Syst. 2002 Apr;26(2):113-25 [PMID: 11993568]
  33. BMJ. 2002 May 18;324(7347):1193-4 [PMID: 12016186]
  34. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2002 Jun;41(6):660-70 [PMID: 12049440]
  35. Int J Eat Disord. 2002 Nov;32(3):352-61 [PMID: 12210650]
  36. Pain. 2002 Sep;99(1-2):341-7 [PMID: 12237213]
  37. Crit Care Med. 2002 Sep;30(9):2038-43 [PMID: 12352038]
  38. N Z Med J. 2002 Sep 27;115(1162):U185 [PMID: 12386664]
  39. Control Clin Trials. 2002 Oct;23(5):469-80 [PMID: 12392861]
  40. BMC Public Health. 2002 Aug 21;2:14 [PMID: 12191432]
  41. Fam Med. 2002 Nov-Dec;34(10):719-20 [PMID: 12448637]
  42. J Orthop Res. 2002 Nov;20(6):1146-51 [PMID: 12472221]
  43. Ann Pharmacother. 2003 Feb;37(2):287-96 [PMID: 12549963]
  44. J Nurs Educ. 2003 Jan;42(1):41-2 [PMID: 12555822]
  45. Neuropsychobiology. 2002;46 Suppl 1:10-2 [PMID: 12571426]
  46. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003 Mar-Apr;10(2):139-49 [PMID: 12595403]
  47. Menopause. 2000 May-Jun;7(3):200-8 [PMID: 10810966]

MeSH Term

Biomedical Research
Clinical Protocols
Computers, Handheld
Data Collection
Efficiency, Organizational
Humans
Paper
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Research Design
Time Factors

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0datacomputersstudiespapercollectionpencilmethodstrialsoutcomesfourHandheldcapturestudyrandomizedcontrolledcomparedtwooneaccuracytimelinessadherencehandheldsuperiorpreferredhandBACKGROUND:increasinglyfavouredclinicalresearchMETHODS:systematicallyidentifiedreviewedRCTsself-recordingreportingleastfollowingassessed:protocolsRESULTS:comprehensivekeywordsearchNLMGateway'sdatabaseyielded9fittingcriteriainclusionDataextractionperformedcheckedauthorsNoneincludedresultsoverallfavoramongparticipantsuniformdifferentappearreceipthandlingsubjectsthreeadequatelyinstructionsrecordingsubmissioncomparisonsinconsistentfiveCONCLUSION:Handheldseffectivealternativemodesfasterusersreviewcomparingeffectivenessheld

Similar Articles

Cited By