Zhu David, DeFroda Steven F, Browning Robert, Clapp Ian M, Alter Thomas D, Nho Shane J
Section of Young Adult Hip Surgery, Division of Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hip Preservation Center, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2021 Aug 19;3(5):e1401-e1405. doi: 10.1016/j.asmr.2021.06.010. eCollection 2021 Oct.
To evaluate the agreeability between the mobile application-based International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) survey with the paper version, as well as compare the time it takes patients each of the versions, and patient preferences between the two.
Patients seen with symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement syndrome were prospectively enrolled in February 2019 and completed both the paper and application-based iHOT-12, in randomized order. Outcomes scores and time to completion were recorded for each version, and patients were also asked which they preferred. Intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated to assess for absolute agreement between the 2 versions. Bland-Altman plots were constructed to evaluate the agreeability between paper and application-based iHOT-12 scores. Bland-Altman plots were evaluated to identify systematic bias and data stratification was performed to identify sequence bias between the application and paper-based collection modalities.
Twenty-nine patients (aged15-56 years) completed both the paper and application-based versions of the iHOT-12. Between the application-based and paper versions, the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.98, and Bland-Altman analysis showed agreement without bias between versions. There was no sequence bias. Accounting for completion order, the application-based iHOT-12 was faster for patients when compared to the paper version (61.4 ± 20.3 vs 71.9 ± 23.6 seconds, = .02). Twenty-two patients reported a version preference where 19 of 22 (86%) chose application-based ( < .001).
The application-based iHOT-12 demonstrated absolute agreement with the paper iHOT-12, and is faster for patients to complete. Patients preferred using the application-based iHOT-12 over the paper-based version. Application-based PROs allow for collection of patient data at more frequent time points, which may be helpful in tracking the recovery progress of patients and predicting outcomes.
As electronic-based outcome surveys become more common, it is important to know how the results may differ from traditional paper-based surveys.
评估基于移动应用程序的国际髋关节结果工具-12（iHOT-12）调查问卷与纸质版之间的一致性，比较患者完成每个版本所需的时间，以及患者对两者的偏好。
2019年2月前瞻性纳入有症状的股骨髋臼撞击综合征患者，患者以随机顺序完成纸质版和基于应用程序的iHOT-12。记录每个版本的结果评分和完成时间，还询问患者更喜欢哪个版本。计算组内相关系数以评估两个版本之间的绝对一致性。构建Bland-Altman图以评估纸质版和基于应用程序的iHOT-12评分之间的一致性。评估Bland-Altman图以识别系统偏差，并进行数据分层以识别应用程序和纸质收集方式之间的顺序偏差。
29例患者（年龄15 - 56岁）完成了纸质版和基于应用程序的iHOT-12。基于应用程序的版本和纸质版之间，组内相关系数为0.98，Bland-Altman分析显示版本之间无偏差一致。没有顺序偏差。考虑完成顺序，与纸质版相比，基于应用程序的iHOT-12对患者来说完成速度更快（61.4±20.3秒对71.9±23.6秒，P = 0.02）。22例患者报告了版本偏好，其中22例中的19例（86%）选择基于应用程序的版本（P < 0.001）。
基于应用程序的iHOT-12与纸质版iHOT-12显示出绝对一致性，患者完成速度更快。患者更喜欢使用基于应用程序的iHOT-12而不是纸质版。基于应用程序的患者报告结局（PROs）允许在更频繁的时间点收集患者数据，这可能有助于跟踪患者的恢复进展并预测结果。
随着基于电子的结局调查变得越来越普遍，了解结果与传统纸质调查可能有何不同很重要。
