使用随机临床试验的前瞻性数据验证Q1.6腹股沟疝的应用。

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
Hernia Pub Date : 2024-12-12 DOI:10.1007/s10029-024-03238-y
Ludo van Hout, Patrick W H E Vriens, Willem J V Bökkerink
{"title":"使用随机临床试验的前瞻性数据验证Q1.6腹股沟疝的应用。","authors":"Ludo van Hout, Patrick W H E Vriens, Willem J V Bökkerink","doi":"10.1007/s10029-024-03238-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The Q1.6 Inguinal Hernia application remotely and continuously collects patient-reported outcomes from inguinal hernia patients. Previous research has explored its technical, legal, and ethical aspects, along with face, content, and construct validity assessments. This study aims to examine its concurrent validity by comparing prospective data with that from the ENTREPPMENT trial, a randomised study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A small cohort of patients participating in the ENTREPPMENT trial were asked to use the Q1.6 application in addition to their standard care. Corresponding prospective data points, in terms of content and timing relative to the operation date, were identified. Correlation coefficients were calculated for matching variables, and a repeated measures model was created to analyse pain and limitation measures during the first two postoperative weeks.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-eight patients were analysed. Preoperative variables, such as hernia side and painkiller use, demonstrated a predominantly high level of agreement between the two measurement methods, ranging from 'substantial' (0.61-0.8) to 'perfect' (1.0) agreement. Evaluating immediate postoperative outcomes, including pain and limitation scores, revealed a prevalent 'substantial' (0.61-0.8) to 'almost perfect' (0.81-1.0) agreement. In a repeated measures model, the overall within-subjects correlation demonstrated levels of agreement ranging from 'moderate' (0.41-0.6) to 'almost perfect' (0.81-1.0).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study demonstrates strong agreement between data from the Q1.6 Inguinal Hernia application and the ENTREPPMENT trial, supporting its concurrent validity. This makes the application a reliable tool for collecting PROs before and immediately after inguinal hernia repair, offering a promising alternative to traditional follow-up methods. Future research will focus on enhancing compliance and refining functionality.</p>","PeriodicalId":13168,"journal":{"name":"Hernia","volume":"29 1","pages":"45"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validating the Q1.6 Inguinal Hernia application using prospective data from a randomised clinical trial.\",\"authors\":\"Ludo van Hout, Patrick W H E Vriens, Willem J V Bökkerink\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10029-024-03238-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The Q1.6 Inguinal Hernia application remotely and continuously collects patient-reported outcomes from inguinal hernia patients. Previous research has explored its technical, legal, and ethical aspects, along with face, content, and construct validity assessments. This study aims to examine its concurrent validity by comparing prospective data with that from the ENTREPPMENT trial, a randomised study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A small cohort of patients participating in the ENTREPPMENT trial were asked to use the Q1.6 application in addition to their standard care. Corresponding prospective data points, in terms of content and timing relative to the operation date, were identified. Correlation coefficients were calculated for matching variables, and a repeated measures model was created to analyse pain and limitation measures during the first two postoperative weeks.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-eight patients were analysed. Preoperative variables, such as hernia side and painkiller use, demonstrated a predominantly high level of agreement between the two measurement methods, ranging from 'substantial' (0.61-0.8) to 'perfect' (1.0) agreement. Evaluating immediate postoperative outcomes, including pain and limitation scores, revealed a prevalent 'substantial' (0.61-0.8) to 'almost perfect' (0.81-1.0) agreement. In a repeated measures model, the overall within-subjects correlation demonstrated levels of agreement ranging from 'moderate' (0.41-0.6) to 'almost perfect' (0.81-1.0).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study demonstrates strong agreement between data from the Q1.6 Inguinal Hernia application and the ENTREPPMENT trial, supporting its concurrent validity. This makes the application a reliable tool for collecting PROs before and immediately after inguinal hernia repair, offering a promising alternative to traditional follow-up methods. Future research will focus on enhancing compliance and refining functionality.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13168,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hernia\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"45\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hernia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-024-03238-y\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hernia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-024-03238-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:Q1.6腹股沟疝应用程序远程和连续收集腹股沟疝患者报告的结果。先前的研究已经探讨了它的技术、法律和伦理方面,以及外观、内容和结构效度评估。本研究旨在通过比较前瞻性数据与ENTREPPMENT试验(一项随机研究)的数据来检验其并发效度。方法:一小群参加ENTREPPMENT试验的患者被要求在标准治疗之外使用Q1.6应用。在相对于手术日期的内容和时间方面,确定了相应的前瞻性数据点。计算匹配变量的相关系数,并创建重复测量模型来分析术后前两周的疼痛和限制措施。结果:对28例患者进行了分析。术前变量,如疝侧和止痛药的使用,显示了两种测量方法之间的高度一致性,从“大量”(0.61-0.8)到“完美”(1.0)的一致性。评估术后即刻结果,包括疼痛和限制评分,显示普遍存在“实质性”(0.61-0.8)到“几乎完美”(0.81-1.0)的一致性。在重复测量模型中,受试者内部的整体相关性显示了从“中等”(0.41-0.6)到“几乎完美”(0.81-1.0)的一致性水平。结论:本研究显示Q1.6腹股沟疝应用和ENTREPPMENT试验的数据有很强的一致性,支持其同时有效性。这使得该应用程序成为在腹股沟疝修补之前和之后立即收集pro的可靠工具,为传统的随访方法提供了一个有希望的替代方案。未来的研究将集中在增强遵从性和优化功能上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Validating the Q1.6 Inguinal Hernia application using prospective data from a randomised clinical trial.

Purpose: The Q1.6 Inguinal Hernia application remotely and continuously collects patient-reported outcomes from inguinal hernia patients. Previous research has explored its technical, legal, and ethical aspects, along with face, content, and construct validity assessments. This study aims to examine its concurrent validity by comparing prospective data with that from the ENTREPPMENT trial, a randomised study.

Methods: A small cohort of patients participating in the ENTREPPMENT trial were asked to use the Q1.6 application in addition to their standard care. Corresponding prospective data points, in terms of content and timing relative to the operation date, were identified. Correlation coefficients were calculated for matching variables, and a repeated measures model was created to analyse pain and limitation measures during the first two postoperative weeks.

Results: Twenty-eight patients were analysed. Preoperative variables, such as hernia side and painkiller use, demonstrated a predominantly high level of agreement between the two measurement methods, ranging from 'substantial' (0.61-0.8) to 'perfect' (1.0) agreement. Evaluating immediate postoperative outcomes, including pain and limitation scores, revealed a prevalent 'substantial' (0.61-0.8) to 'almost perfect' (0.81-1.0) agreement. In a repeated measures model, the overall within-subjects correlation demonstrated levels of agreement ranging from 'moderate' (0.41-0.6) to 'almost perfect' (0.81-1.0).

Conclusion: This study demonstrates strong agreement between data from the Q1.6 Inguinal Hernia application and the ENTREPPMENT trial, supporting its concurrent validity. This makes the application a reliable tool for collecting PROs before and immediately after inguinal hernia repair, offering a promising alternative to traditional follow-up methods. Future research will focus on enhancing compliance and refining functionality.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Hernia
Hernia SURGERY-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
26.10%
发文量
171
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Hernia was founded in 1997 by Jean P. Chevrel with the purpose of promoting clinical studies and basic research as they apply to groin hernias and the abdominal wall . Since that time, a true revolution in the field of hernia studies has transformed the field from a ”simple” disease to one that is very specialized. While the majority of surgeries for primary inguinal and abdominal wall hernia are performed in hospitals worldwide, complex situations such as multi recurrences, complications, abdominal wall reconstructions and others are being studied and treated in specialist centers. As a result, major institutions and societies are creating specific parameters and criteria to better address the complexities of hernia surgery. Hernia is a journal written by surgeons who have made abdominal wall surgery their specific field of interest, but we will consider publishing content from any surgeon who wishes to improve the science of this field. The Journal aims to ensure that hernia surgery is safer and easier for surgeons as well as patients, and provides a forum to all surgeons in the exchange of new ideas, results, and important research that is the basis of professional activity.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信