Comparison of agreement between internet-based registration of patient-reported outcomes and clinic-based paper forms within the Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register.

Objective

The Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register has implemented an internet-based method (PER) for registering patient-recorded outcome measures. The aim of this study was to compare the agreement between visual analogue scales (VASs) reported via PER and clinic-based reporting using paper forms.

Methods

In a cross-sectional study (70 patients), the results of 79 registrations of VASs for global health, pain, and fatigue from PER were compared with corresponding clinic-based paper registrations. For patients with polyarthritis, 28-joint count Disease Activity Scores (DAS28) were computed. Patients with axial disease also completed Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index and Functional Index (BASDAI and BASFI) questionnaires. Mean differences and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated. Agreement was visualized using Bland-Altman plots.

Results

No statistically significant differences in VASs were found comparing PER and paper forms for VAS Global, VAS Pain, and VAS Fatigue (p = 0.295, 0.463, and 0.288, respectively). ICCs for VAS Global, Pain, and Fatigue ranged from 0.889 to 0.952, indicating excellent agreement. Bland-Altman plots for VAS did not show any proportional bias. The mean difference for DAS28 calculated by VASs from paper vs PER was -0.02 (n = 65, p = 0.660), and the mean difference for BASDAI was 0.04 (n = 11, p = 0.742). ICCs for DAS28 and BASDAI were 0.962 and 0.985, respectively. Of the participating patients, 60% preferred PER.

Conclusion

Internet-based reporting for patient-reported outcomes in a clinical setting resulted in similar data for VASs and corresponding disease activity scores to clinic-based reporting on paper forms.