Cited by 208Survey Methodology and NonresponseElectronic Health Records SystemsMobile Health and mHealth Applications

A review of randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of hand held computers with paper methods for data collection

Open access
Lane, Shannon J, Heddle, Nancy M, Arnold, Emmy, Walker, Irwin·2006·BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

Abstract

Background: Handheld computers are increasingly favoured over paper and pencil methods to capture data in clinical research. Methods: This study systematically identified and reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the two methods for self-recording and reporting data, and where at least one of the following outcomes was assessed: data accuracy; timeliness of data capture; and adherence to protocols for data collection. Results: A comprehensive key word search of NLM Gateway's database yielded 9 studies fitting the criteria for inclusion. Data extraction was performed and checked by two of the authors. None of the studies included all outcomes. The results overall, favor handheld computers over paper and pencil for data collection among study participants but the data are not uniform for the different outcomes. Handheld computers appear superior in timeliness of receipt and data handling (four of four studies) and are preferred by most subjects (three of four studies). On the other hand, only one of the trials adequately compared adherence to instructions for recording and submission of data (handheld computers were superior), and comparisons of accuracy were inconsistent between five studies. Conclusion: Handhelds are an effective alternative to paper and pencil modes of data collection; they are faster and were preferred by most users.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1472-6947-6-23

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. DL S GR N PDQ Epidemiology 1996 2nd edition St Louis, Mosby-Year Book Inc. 48 78

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lane, S. J., Heddle, N. M., Arnold, E., & Walker, I.
Affiliations
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • Canadian Blood Services (CA)
Corresponding author
Walker, Irwin
Venue
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published
2006-05-31
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
23-23
ISSN
1472-6947 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1492367679
Cited by
208
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 17
FWCI
30.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • McMaster University
  • Canadian Blood Services
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
personal digital assistants, electronic data capture, clinical research data collection, data accuracy, protocol adherence, participant preferences, self-recording
MeSH terms
Clinical Protocols, Data Collection, Humans, Paper, Research Design, Time Factors, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Efficiency, Organizational, Computers, Handheld, Biomedical Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review