RESUMO
Objective: Frequency voiding charts are commonly used to gain better insight into the voiding and drinking behaviours of patients with voiding symptoms. Non-compliance when filling out a chart is known to be high. The use of a digital application might increase adherence, but little research has been conducted on this topic. The aim of this study is to compare the quality (number of correctly filled out charts) and quantity (number of complete charts) of digital versus paper frequency voiding charts among children and their parents. Methods: A multi-centre parallel randomised controlled trial was conducted. Participants were assigned either a 48-h digital frequency voiding chart or a 48-h paper frequency voiding chart. Completion rates were scored based on a predefined scoring method and transcribed into a percentage. Secondary objectives included user friendliness, feasibility, degree of the child's participation, and attractiveness. Trail registry data: NTR NL9383. Results: Ninety-seven patients were randomised to either a digital (N = 53) or paper (N = 44) frequency voiding chart. No significant difference in complete and accurately filled out frequency voiding charts was seen between the groups, with 35% (N = 18) for digital and 50% (N = 22) for paper, p = 0.12. Subjects considered the digital application more appealing, more educative, and more inviting compared to the paper chart (p < 0.05). Conclusions: In this underpowered study, no significant difference appeared between the groups in the number of complete and accurately filled out frequency voiding charts. Implementation of e-health did not seem to improve compliance. In daily practice, personal preference might offer the best solution.
RESUMO
Introduction: Patient data are increasingly available in (multi)national registries, especially for rare diseases. This study aims to provide an overview of current European registries of paediatric kidney transplantation (PKT) care, their coverage, and their focus. Based on these data, we assess whether the current status is optimal for achieving our common goal: the optimalisation of health care. Methods: A list of all PKT centres within the European Union (EU) as well as active PKT registries was compiled using existing literature and the European Platform on Rare Disease Registration. Registry staff members were contacted to obtain information about the parameters collected and the registry design. These data were compared between registries. Results: In total, 109 PKT centres performing PKT surgery were identified in the 27 EU Member States. Currently, five European PKT registries are actively collecting data. In 39% of these centres, no data were registered within any of these five existing international registries. A large variety was observed in the number of patients, centres, and countries involved in the registries. Furthermore, variability existed regarding the inclusion criteria, definitions used, and parameters collected. Collection of perioperative urologic data are currently underrepresented in the registries. Discussion: Currently, multiple registries are collecting valuable information in the field of PKT, covering the majority of PKT centres in Europe. Due to a large variety in the parameters collected as well as different focuses, data collection is currently fragmented and suboptimal; therefore, the current existing data are incomplete. In addition, a considerable proportion of the transplantation centres do not enter data in any international registry. Combining available information and harmonising future data collection could empower the aim of these registries-namely increasing insights into the strengths and potential of current care and therefore improve healthcare.
