2015
DOI: 10.1504/ijeh.2015.071636
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An acute knee injury: tracking a two-year recovery online

Abstract: Current government policy aims to deliver high quality healthcare by recording accurate data at the point of giving care, storing it efficiently and displaying it in a format, which is easily interpreted by healthcare professionals and patients. Few published reports describe the benefits of collecting and reporting such data from the point of view of the patient. We report the case of a 62-year-old lorry driver who used a web-based system to track patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) following an acute k… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
1
1

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 25 publications
(31 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…73 Study design may be the influence here, in that single case, validation or cohort studies may be delivered by the developer of the initiative in these reviewed articles. 31,39,52,74,75 This is akin to a pharmaceutical manufacturer not only paying for the research but also administering the drug to the patient, which implicates further bias. 76 The randomised trials within this review fared no better than lower quality designs in terms of reporting, although the single incidence of patient and practitioner satisfaction was an RCT of small sample size in a journal of low impact.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…73 Study design may be the influence here, in that single case, validation or cohort studies may be delivered by the developer of the initiative in these reviewed articles. 31,39,52,74,75 This is akin to a pharmaceutical manufacturer not only paying for the research but also administering the drug to the patient, which implicates further bias. 76 The randomised trials within this review fared no better than lower quality designs in terms of reporting, although the single incidence of patient and practitioner satisfaction was an RCT of small sample size in a journal of low impact.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%