↓ Skip to main content

Validity of mobile electronic data capture in clinical studies: a pilot study in a pediatric population

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Validity of mobile electronic data capture in clinical studies: a pilot study in a pediatric population
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0438-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Belinda von Niederhäusern, Ramon Saccilotto, Sabine Schädelin, Victoria Ziesenitz, Pascal Benkert, Marie-Luise Decker, Anya Hammann, Julia Bielicki, Marc Pfister, Christiane Pauli-Magnus

Abstract

Clinical studies in children are necessary yet conducting multiple visits at study centers remains challenging. The success of "care-at-home" initiatives and remote clinical trials suggests their potential to facilitate conduct of pediatric studies. This pilot aimed to study the feasibility of remotely collecting valid (i.e. complete and correct) saliva samples and clinical data utilizing mobile technology. Single-center, prospective pilot study in children undergoing elective tonsillectomy at the University of Basel Children's Hospital. Data on pain scores and concomitant medication and saliva samples were collected by caregivers on two to four inpatient study days and on three consecutive study days at home. A tailored mobile application developed for this study supported data collection. The primary endpoint was the proportion of complete and correct caregiver-collected data (pain scale) and saliva samples in the at-home setting. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of complete and correct saliva samples in the inpatient setting, subjective feasibility for caregivers, and study cost. A total number of 23 children were included in the study of which 17 children, median age 6.0 years (IQR 5.0, 7.4), completed the study. During the at-home phase, 71.9% [CI = 64.4, 78.6] of all caregiver-collected pain assessments and 53.9% [CI = 44.2, 63.4] of all saliva samples were complete and correct. Overall, 64.7% [CI = 58.7, 70.4] of all data collected by caregivers at home was complete and correct. The predominant reason for incorrectness of data was adherence to the timing of predefined patient actions. Participating caregivers reported high levels of satisfaction and willingness to participate in similar trials in the future. Study costs for a potential sample size of 100 patients were calculated to be 20% lower for the at-home than for a traditional in-patient study setting. Mobile device supported studies conducted at home may provide a cost-effective approach to facilitate conduct of clinical studies in children. Given findings in this pilot study, data collection at home may focus on electronic data capture rather than biological sampling.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Other 4 8%
Student > Master 4 8%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 20 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Computer Science 3 6%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 26 51%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 March 2020.
All research outputs
#7,030,867
of 23,011,300 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,044
of 2,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#140,047
of 439,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#24
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,011,300 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,029 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 439,767 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.