@文章{信息:doi/10.2196/28915，作者=“余红帆、余青松、聂青松、徐玉贤、魏与普、杨与代、魏与魏、邢与石、秋玲”，标题=“胸外科术后患者报告结果纵向收集数据质量:纸质与网络评估的比较”，期刊=“J医学网络研究”，年=“2021”，月=“11”，日=“9”，卷=“23”，数=“11”，页数=“e28915”，关键词=“患者报告结果(PRO);数据质量;MDASI-LC;术后护理;背景:高频患者报告预后(PRO)评估用于测量患者手术后症状，用于外科研究;然而，这些纵向PRO数据的质量却很少被讨论。目的:本研究的目的是确定影响数据质量的因素，并分析胸外科手术后通过纸笔(P{\&}P)或基于网络的评估(电子PRO [ePRO])纵向收集的数据的误差轨迹。方法:我们从一项观察性研究(n=512)和一项随机临床试验(n=166)中提取了678例计划接受肺部手术的患者的纵向PRO数据，以评估不同的围手术期护理策略。术前使用MD Anderson肺癌症状清单模块和单项生活质量量表对PROs进行评估，然后在手术后每天进行评估，直到出院或住院14天。识别患者依从性和数据误差，并比较P{\&}P和ePRO。 Generalized estimating equations model and 2-piecewise model were used to describe trajectories of error incidence over time and to identify the risk factors. Results: Among 678 patients, 629 with at least 2 PRO assessments, 440 completed 3347 P{\&}P assessments and 189 completed 1291 ePRO assessments. In total, 49.4{\%} of patients had at least one error, including (1) missing items (64.69{\%}, 1070/1654), (2) modifications without signatures (27.99{\%}, 463/1654), (3) selection of multiple options (3.02{\%}, 50/1654), (4) missing patient signatures (2.54{\%}, 42/1654), (5) missing researcher signatures (1.45{\%}, 24/1654), and (6) missing completion dates (0.30{\%}, 5/1654). Patients who completed ePRO had fewer errors than those who completed P{\&}P assessments (ePRO: 30.2{\%} [57/189] vs. P{\&}P: 57.7{\%} [254/440]; P<.001). Compared with ePRO patients, those using P{\&}P were older, less educated, and sicker. Common risk factors of having errors were a lower education level (P{\&}P: odds ratio [OR] 1.39, 95{\%} CI 1.20-1.62; P<.001; ePRO: OR 1.82, 95{\%} CI 1.22-2.72; P=.003), treated in a provincial hospital (P{\&}P: OR 3.34, 95{\%} CI 2.10-5.33; P<.001; ePRO: OR 4.73, 95{\%} CI 2.18-10.25; P<.001), and with severe disease (P{\&}P: OR 1.63, 95{\%} CI 1.33-1.99; P<.001; ePRO: OR 2.70, 95{\%} CI 1.53-4.75; P<.001). Errors peaked on postoperative day (POD) 1 for P{\&}P, and on POD 2 for ePRO. Conclusions: It is possible to improve data quality of longitudinally collected PRO through ePRO, compared with P{\&}P. However, ePRO-related sampling bias needs to be considered when designing clinical research using longitudinal PROs as major outcomes. ", issn="1438-8871", doi="10.2196/28915", url="//www.mybigtv.com/2021/11/e28915", url="https://doi.org/10.2196/28915", url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34751657" }