In reply: reporting quality of systematic review abstracts published in leading neurosurgical journals: a research on research study

[Excerpt] To the Editor: We would very much like to thank Dr Vilanilam1 for adding their voice to our call for improved reporting of abstracts in leading neurosurgical journals.2 By drawing attention to “categories” of abstract consumers, Vilanilam1 causes us to ponder the varied expected consequences that abstract quality has on different readers. They further extend upon our comments by identifying that abstracts often form the basis of preliminary decisions regarding acceptance, or, otherwise, of submissions for publication in scientific journals,3 and often constitute the only published record of a piece of research.4 When taken with the results of our study, these comments strengthen the rationale for a renewed focus on improving the reporting quality of neurosurgical abstracts

Comparability of a provisioned device versus bring your own device for completion of patient-reported outcome measures by participants with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: quantitative study findings

Objective: To quantitatively compare equivalence and compliance of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collected via provisioned device (PD) versus bring your own device (BYOD). Methods: Participants with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) completed the EXAcerbations of Chronic Pulmonary Disease Tool (EXACT®) daily and COPD Assessment Test™ (CAT) and Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGIS) of COPD weekly on either PD or BYOD for 15 days, then switched device types for 15 days. EXACT was scored using the Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS®: COPD) algorithm and equivalence assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) adjusting for cross-over sequence, period, and time. Two one-sided tests (TOSTs) used ICC adjusted means with 10%, 20%, and 40% of total score tested as equivalence margins. Compliance and comfort with technology were assessed. Equivalence across 3 device screen sizes was assessed following the second completion period. Results: Participants (N = 64) reported high comfort with technology, with 79.7% reporting being “quite a bit” or “very” comfortable. Weekly compliance was high (BYOD = 89.7–100%; PD = 76.9–100%). CAT and E-RS: COPD scores correlated well with PGIS (r > 0.50) and demonstrated equivalence between PD and BYOD completion (ICC = 0.863–0.908). TOST equivalence was achieved within 10% of the total score (p > 0.05). PRO measure scores were equivalent across 3 different screen sizes (ICC = 0.972–0.989). Conclusions: Measure completion was high and scores equivalent between PD and BYOD, supporting use of BYOD in addition to PD for collecting PRO data in COPD studies and in demographically diverse patient populations. © 2022, The Author(s).Open access journalThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

Comparability of a provisioned device versus bring your own device for completion of patient-reported outcome measures by participants with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: qualitative interview findings

Background: There is interest in participants using their own smartphones or tablets (“bring your own device”; BYOD) to complete patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in clinical studies. Our study aimed to qualitatively evaluate participants’ experience using a provisioned device (PD) versus their own smartphone (BYOD) for this purpose. Methods: Participants with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were recruited for this observational, cross-over study and completed PRO measures daily on one device type for 15 days, then switched to the other device type to complete the same measures for another 15 days. After each 15-day period, semi-structured interviews were conducted about their experience with the device. Results: Of 64 participants enrolled, the final qualitative analysis populations comprised those who participated in an interview without protocol violations. Thus, the qualitative longitudinal population (LP) included n = 57 (89%), while the qualitative cross-sectional population (CSP) included n = 60 (94%). CSP participants found both device types easy to use. Twenty CSP participants (33%) reported missing data entry on at least one day when using PD, and 24 (40%) reported missing at least one day when using BYOD. In the LP, preference for one of the device types was somewhat evenly split; 45.6% (n = 26) preferred PD and 50.9% (n = 29) preferred BYOD. The most common reason for preferring PD was that it was “dedicated” to the study; the “convenience” of carrying a single device was the main reason for preferring BYOD. Conclusion: The findings from the interviews demonstrated few differences in participants’ experience completing PRO measures on a PD versus BYOD. Our study supports the use of BYOD as a potential addition to PD for collecting PRO data and contributes evidence that BYOD may be employed to collect PRO data in demographically diverse patient populations. © 2022, The Author(s).Open access journalThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]