English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Purpose   The purpose of the study was to evaluate the reliability, review differences and assess patient satisfaction of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) compared with paper PROMs.Methods   Participants between 12 and 19 years of age with a knee-related primary complaint were randomized into two groups. Group 1 completed paper PROMs followed by electronic, while Group 2 received the electronic followed by paper. PROMs included the Pediatric International Knee Documentation Committee (Pedi-IKDC), Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) Pediatric Functional Activity Brief Scale (HSS Pedi-FABS), Tegner Activity Level Scale, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), PedsQL Teen and a satisfaction survey.Results   In all, 87 participants were enrolled with one excluded due to incomplete PROMs. Of the 86 participants, 54 were female and 32 were male with an average age of 14.3 years (12 to 18). A high degree of reliability was found when comparing the paper and electronic versions of the Pedi-IKDC (0.946; p &lt; 0.001), HSS Pedi-FABS (0.923; p &lt; 0.001), PedsQL Teen (0.894; p &lt; 0.001), Tegner Activity Level Scale before injury (0.848; p &lt; 0.001) and the Tegner Activity Level Scale after (0.930; p &lt; 0.001). Differences were noted between the VAS scores, with paper scores being significantly higher than electronic (5.3 versus 4.6; p &lt; 0.001). While not significant, a trend was noted in which electronic PROMs took, overall, less time than paper (10.0 mins versus 11.2 mins; p = 0.096). Of all participants, 69.8% preferred the electronic PROMs, 67.4% felt they were faster, 93.0% stated they would complete forms at home prior to appointments and 91.8% were not concerned about the safety/privacy of electronic forms.Conclusion   PROMs captured electronically were reliable when compared with paper. Electronic PROMs may be quicker, will not require manual scoring and are preferred by patients.Level of Evidence   II

An electronic patient-reported outcomes measurement system in paediatric orthopaedics