New technology for clinical data collection is rapidly evolving and may be useful for both researchers and clinicians; however, this new technology has not been tested for accuracy, reliability, or validity.
This study aims to test the accuracy of visual analog scale (VAS) for pain on a newly designed application on the iPad (iPadVAS) and measure the reliability and validity of iPadVAS compared to a paper copy (paperVAS).
Accuracy was determined by physically measuring an iPad scale on screen and comparing it to the results from the program, with a researcher collecting 101 data points. A total of 22 healthy community dwelling older adults were then recruited to test reliability and validity. Each participant completed 8 VAS (4 using each tool) in a randomized order. Reliability was measured using interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and validity measured using Bland-Altman graphs and correlations.
Of the measurements for accuracy, 64 results were identical, 2 results were manually measured as being 1 mm higher than the program, and 35 as 1 mm lower. Reliability for the iPadVAS was excellent with individual ICC 0.90 (95% CI 0.82-0.95) and averaged ICC 0.97 (95% CI 0.95-1.0) observed. Linear regression demonstrated a strong relationship with a small negative bias towards the iPad (-2.6, SD 5.0) with limits of agreement from -12.4 to 7.1.
The iPadVAS provides a convenient, user-friendly, and efficient way of collecting data from participants in measuring their current pain levels. It has potential use in documentation management and may encourage participatory healthcare.
Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): 367297; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=367297&isReview=true (Archived by Webcite at http://www.webcitation.org/6d9xYoUbD).
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 09 June 2016.
All research outputs
#21,024,125
of 33,942,205 outputs
Outputs from Interact J Med Res
#186
of 546 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,154
of 449,405 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Interact J Med Res
#6
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,942,205 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 546 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
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 449,405 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.
