Prospective, randomized evaluation of a personal digital assistant-based research tool in the emergency department

Morris L. Rivera, Jason Donnelly, Blair A. Parry, Anthony Dinizio, Charles L. Johnson, Jeffrey Kline, Christopher Kabrhel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background. Personal digital assistants (PDA) offer putative advantages over paper for collecting research data. However, there are no data prospectively comparing PDA and paper in the emergency department. The aim of this study was to prospectively compare the performance of PDA and paper enrollment instruments with respect to time required and errors generated. Methods. We randomized consecutive patients enrolled in an ongoing prospective study to having their data recorded either on a PDA or a paper data collection instrument. For each method, we recorded the total time required for enrollment, and the time required for manual transcription (paper) onto a computer database. We compared data error rates by examining missing data, nonsensical data, and errors made during the transcription of paper forms. Statistical comparisons were performed by Kruskal-Wallis and Poisson regression analyses for time and errors, respectively. Results. We enrolled 68 patients (37 PDA, 31 paper). Two of 31 paper forms were not available for analysis. Total data gathering times, inclusive of transcription, were significantly less for PDA (6:13 min per patient) compared to paper (9:12 min per patient; p <0.001). There were a total of 0.9 missing and nonsense errors per paper form compared to 0.2 errors per PDA form (p <0.001). An additional 0.7 errors per paper form were generated during transcription. In total, there were 1.6 errors per paper form and 0.2 errors per PDA form (p <0.001). Conclusion. Using a PDA-based data collection instrument for clinical research reduces the time required for data gathering and significantly improves data integrity.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number3
JournalBMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Volume8
DOIs
StatePublished - 2008
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Handheld Computers
Hospital Emergency Service
Research
Regression Analysis
Databases
Prospective Studies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Prospective, randomized evaluation of a personal digital assistant-based research tool in the emergency department. / Rivera, Morris L.; Donnelly, Jason; Parry, Blair A.; Dinizio, Anthony; Johnson, Charles L.; Kline, Jeffrey; Kabrhel, Christopher.

In: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, Vol. 8, 3, 2008.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Rivera, Morris L. ; Donnelly, Jason ; Parry, Blair A. ; Dinizio, Anthony ; Johnson, Charles L. ; Kline, Jeffrey ; Kabrhel, Christopher. / Prospective, randomized evaluation of a personal digital assistant-based research tool in the emergency department. In: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2008 ; Vol. 8.
@article{7ce82727e604453b9087cbdd2d15afd1,
title = "Prospective, randomized evaluation of a personal digital assistant-based research tool in the emergency department",
abstract = "Background. Personal digital assistants (PDA) offer putative advantages over paper for collecting research data. However, there are no data prospectively comparing PDA and paper in the emergency department. The aim of this study was to prospectively compare the performance of PDA and paper enrollment instruments with respect to time required and errors generated. Methods. We randomized consecutive patients enrolled in an ongoing prospective study to having their data recorded either on a PDA or a paper data collection instrument. For each method, we recorded the total time required for enrollment, and the time required for manual transcription (paper) onto a computer database. We compared data error rates by examining missing data, nonsensical data, and errors made during the transcription of paper forms. Statistical comparisons were performed by Kruskal-Wallis and Poisson regression analyses for time and errors, respectively. Results. We enrolled 68 patients (37 PDA, 31 paper). Two of 31 paper forms were not available for analysis. Total data gathering times, inclusive of transcription, were significantly less for PDA (6:13 min per patient) compared to paper (9:12 min per patient; p <0.001). There were a total of 0.9 missing and nonsense errors per paper form compared to 0.2 errors per PDA form (p <0.001). An additional 0.7 errors per paper form were generated during transcription. In total, there were 1.6 errors per paper form and 0.2 errors per PDA form (p <0.001). Conclusion. Using a PDA-based data collection instrument for clinical research reduces the time required for data gathering and significantly improves data integrity.",
author = "Rivera, {Morris L.} and Jason Donnelly and Parry, {Blair A.} and Anthony Dinizio and Johnson, {Charles L.} and Jeffrey Kline and Christopher Kabrhel",
year = "2008",
doi = "10.1186/1472-6947-8-3",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "8",
journal = "BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making",
issn = "1472-6947",
publisher = "BioMed Central",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Prospective, randomized evaluation of a personal digital assistant-based research tool in the emergency department

AU - Rivera, Morris L.

AU - Donnelly, Jason

AU - Parry, Blair A.

AU - Dinizio, Anthony

AU - Johnson, Charles L.

AU - Kline, Jeffrey

AU - Kabrhel, Christopher

PY - 2008

Y1 - 2008

N2 - Background. Personal digital assistants (PDA) offer putative advantages over paper for collecting research data. However, there are no data prospectively comparing PDA and paper in the emergency department. The aim of this study was to prospectively compare the performance of PDA and paper enrollment instruments with respect to time required and errors generated. Methods. We randomized consecutive patients enrolled in an ongoing prospective study to having their data recorded either on a PDA or a paper data collection instrument. For each method, we recorded the total time required for enrollment, and the time required for manual transcription (paper) onto a computer database. We compared data error rates by examining missing data, nonsensical data, and errors made during the transcription of paper forms. Statistical comparisons were performed by Kruskal-Wallis and Poisson regression analyses for time and errors, respectively. Results. We enrolled 68 patients (37 PDA, 31 paper). Two of 31 paper forms were not available for analysis. Total data gathering times, inclusive of transcription, were significantly less for PDA (6:13 min per patient) compared to paper (9:12 min per patient; p <0.001). There were a total of 0.9 missing and nonsense errors per paper form compared to 0.2 errors per PDA form (p <0.001). An additional 0.7 errors per paper form were generated during transcription. In total, there were 1.6 errors per paper form and 0.2 errors per PDA form (p <0.001). Conclusion. Using a PDA-based data collection instrument for clinical research reduces the time required for data gathering and significantly improves data integrity.

AB - Background. Personal digital assistants (PDA) offer putative advantages over paper for collecting research data. However, there are no data prospectively comparing PDA and paper in the emergency department. The aim of this study was to prospectively compare the performance of PDA and paper enrollment instruments with respect to time required and errors generated. Methods. We randomized consecutive patients enrolled in an ongoing prospective study to having their data recorded either on a PDA or a paper data collection instrument. For each method, we recorded the total time required for enrollment, and the time required for manual transcription (paper) onto a computer database. We compared data error rates by examining missing data, nonsensical data, and errors made during the transcription of paper forms. Statistical comparisons were performed by Kruskal-Wallis and Poisson regression analyses for time and errors, respectively. Results. We enrolled 68 patients (37 PDA, 31 paper). Two of 31 paper forms were not available for analysis. Total data gathering times, inclusive of transcription, were significantly less for PDA (6:13 min per patient) compared to paper (9:12 min per patient; p <0.001). There were a total of 0.9 missing and nonsense errors per paper form compared to 0.2 errors per PDA form (p <0.001). An additional 0.7 errors per paper form were generated during transcription. In total, there were 1.6 errors per paper form and 0.2 errors per PDA form (p <0.001). Conclusion. Using a PDA-based data collection instrument for clinical research reduces the time required for data gathering and significantly improves data integrity.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=39149134602&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=39149134602&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/1472-6947-8-3

DO - 10.1186/1472-6947-8-3

M3 - Article

C2 - 18205902

AN - SCOPUS:39149134602

VL - 8

JO - BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

JF - BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

SN - 1472-6947

M1 - 3

ER -