Pawar Sumeet G, Ramani P S, Prasad Apurva, Dhar Arjun, Babhulkar Sudhendoo S, Bahurupi Yogesh A
a Department of Neuro Spinal Surgery , Lilavati Hospital and Research Centre , Mumbai , India.
b Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, , Indira Gandhi Medical College, JIPMER , Puducherry , India.
Neurol Res. 2017 Apr;39(4):292-297. doi: 10.1080/01616412.2017.1297555. Epub 2017 Mar 24.
Developing and using the software version of existing validated paper version of patient-related outcome can go a long way in saving cost, time and effort. However, the equivalence of paper version and software versions cannot be assumed. The aim of the study is to test the equivalence between paper version and software version of Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire and its acceptability among patients.
This is a within-subject cross over equivalence study. Fifty-five patients with back pain were asked to complete the paper and software version of RMDQ in random order. Patients were included from the Neuro Spinal surgery outpatient department of Lilavati Hospital and Research Center.
Statistical analysis of 52 patients who completed the study showed high agreement between the paper and software version of the questionnaire (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.994, 95% confidence interval (0.989-0.996)). High sensitivity and specificity of 84 and 88% of the software version was noted. About 69.2% patients preferred software version over paper version.
Our study shows that software version is comparable to the paper version. It may prove to be a useful tool for epidemiological studies and patient follow-up over longer period.
开发并使用现有经过验证的患者相关结局纸质版的软件版本，在节省成本、时间和精力方面大有可为。然而，不能假定纸质版和软件版本是等效的。本研究的目的是测试罗兰·莫里斯残疾问卷纸质版和软件版本之间的等效性及其在患者中的可接受性。
这是一项受试者内交叉等效性研究。55例背痛患者被要求以随机顺序完成RMDQ的纸质版和软件版。患者来自利拉瓦蒂医院和研究中心的神经脊柱外科门诊。
对52例完成研究的患者进行的统计分析显示，问卷的纸质版和软件版之间具有高度一致性（组内相关系数0.994，95%置信区间（0.989 - 0.996））。软件版的敏感性和特异性分别高达84%和88%。约69.2%的患者更喜欢软件版而非纸质版。
我们的研究表明，软件版与纸质版相当。它可能被证明是流行病学研究和长期患者随访的有用工具。
