The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A review of randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of hand held computers with paper methods for data collection
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Research has indicated the electronic data collection increases the speed, accuracy, and user acceptability of the process [197–199].”
From Infraslow closed-loop brain training for anxiety and depression (ISAD): a protocol for a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled pilot trial in adult females with internalizing disorders (2022) · cites this paper as [197]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The New Zealand Medical Journal 1887-1987.
Rg, R. (1987) · PubMed · Cited by 3,673
Research Methods in Health. Investigating health and health services
Bowling, A. (1997) · Research Repository (Kingston University London) · Cited by 1,636
Patient compliance with paper and electronic diaries
Stone, A. A., Shiffman, S., Schwartz, J. E., Broderick, J. E., & Hufford, M. R. (2003) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/s0197-2456(02)00320-3 · Cited by 910
Patient non-compliance with paper diaries
Stone, A. A., Shiffman, S., Schwartz, J. E., Broderick, J. E., & Hufford, M. R. (2002) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7347.1193 · Cited by 810
Kaplan, B. (2001) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/s1386-5056(01)00184-8 · Cited by 380
Remember that? A comparison of real-time versus retrospective recall of smoking lapses.
Shiffman, S. M., Hufford, M. R., Hickcox, M., Paty, J. A., Gnys, M., & Kassel, J. D. (1997) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.65.2.292.a · Cited by 379
Handheld Computing in Medicine
Fischer, S. E., Stewart, T. E., Mehta, S., Wax, R. S., & Lapinsky, S. E. (2003) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1197/jamia.m1180 · Cited by 318
Electronic diaries for monitoring chronic pain: 1-year validation study
Jamison, R. N., Raymond, S. A., Levine, J. G., Slawsby, E. A., Nedeljković, S. S., & Katz, N. P. (2001) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(00)00450-4 · Cited by 249
Kushniruk, A. W. (2002) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0010-4825(02)00011-2 · Cited by 241
Jamison, R. N., Gracely, R. H., Raymond, S. A., Levine, J. G., Marino, B., Herrmann, T. J., Daly, M., Fram, D. H., & Katz, N. P. (2002) · Pain · doi:10.1016/s0304-3959(02)00178-1 · Cited by 209
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- DL S, GR N: PDQ Epidemiology. 1996, St Louis, Mosby-Year Book Inc., 48-78. 2nd edition
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–208 of 208
Smartphones and medical apps in modern medicine: breaking the health norms (Preprint)Preprint
Acharya, Y. (2018) · doi:10.2196/preprints.10259
Digital Platforms to Support Feedback Processing in Aged Care Homes: Friend or Foe?
Linden, T., & Fisher, R. (2023) · Studies in computational intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-42112-9_5
Digitizing Medical History: French Validation of FirstHx Primary Care Tool: Research protocolPreprint
McGraw, M., Merlin, M. D., Dion, C., Renaud, J., Poirier, M.-D., Cormier, J., Aubé, M.-E., & Quintal, J.-C. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4319627/v1
The Essentials of Clinical Trial Management: Addressing Needs for Successful Outcomes
Kumar, G., & Mukherjee, A. (2024) · Journal of Medical Evidence · doi:10.4103/jme.jme_164_24
McGraw, M., Merlin, M. D., Dion, C., Renaud, J., Légère, D., & Poirier, M.-D. (2025) · Minorités linguistiques et société · doi:10.7202/1117942ar
Perez, T. M., Sliwka, M., Smith-Ireland, D., Jackson, A., & Sullivan, S. G. B. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1846987
Ingoglia, S., Bucko, A., McAvoy, C. R., Boikova, M., Ren, S., Moore-Harrison, T. L., Dulin, M., Tudor-Locke, C., Barr‐Anderson, D. J., & Gunn, L. H. (2026) · doi:10.2196/preprints.114749
Metadata
- 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)
- PMC
- PMC1513201
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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
