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}
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.
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.