Back

Balancing data quality and participant burden: A comparative analysis of abbreviated vs extended symptom diaries in the CanTreatCOVID trial

Hosseini, B.; Mohammadrezaei, D.; Balalaie, P.; Sivayoganathan, K.; Condon, A.; da Costa, B. R.; Daley, P.; Greiver, M.; Jüni, P.; Lee, T. C.; McBrien, K.; McDonald, E. G.; Murthy, S. C.; Selby, P.; Pinto, A. D.

2026-01-28 health systems and quality improvement
10.64898/2026.01.23.26343617 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundSymptom diaries are widely used in acute respiratory infection trials to capture patient-reported symptom severity and recovery. Longer questionnaires may provide a more complete clinical picture but can increase participant burden and reduce adherence. Evidence directly comparing long and short formats within the same trial is limited. ObjectiveTo compare adherence, symptom trajectories, agreement between recovery measures, and predictive performance for recovery-related outcomes between a short and long symptom diary in an outpatient SARS-CoV-2 trial MethodsThis secondary analysis of the CanTreatCOVID trial compared a 9-item Abbreviated Diary and a 34-item FLU-PRO Plus Diary over 14 days in non-hospitalized participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Outcomes included diary initiation, completion, completion rate, compliance, symptom trajectories, agreement between recovery outcomes, and predictive performance. Analyses used logistic regression, generalized estimating equations, survival models, and predictive modelling. ResultsOf 712 participants, 638 used the Abbreviated Diary and 74 the FLU-PRO Plus Diary. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Diary type was not significantly associated with diary initiation or full 14-day compliance, whereas treatment assignment was associated with higher adherence (p < 0.0001). Completion rates were slightly higher in the Abbreviated group (68.1% vs. 64.4%), but differences were not statistically significant. Agreement between "feeling recovered" and "return to usual health" was strong to excellent ({kappa} = 0.8371-0.8859), while agreement with "return to usual activities" was moderate ({kappa} = 0.5273-0.6583). Predictive models performed well for both diaries (AUCs 0.87-0.94), with only marginal gains from including the extended FLU-PRO Plus items. ConclusionIn this outpatient SARS-CoV-2 trial, abbreviated and extended symptom diaries produced comparable adherence, symptom trajectories, and predictive performance. Future research should extend follow-up beyond 14 days to capture longer-term patterns and test diary performance in more diverse and digitally underserved populations.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 1%
14.2%
2
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.2%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 14%
14.2%
4
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.8%
5
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
28 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.8%
50% of probability mass above
6
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
4.8%
7
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.8%
8
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.6%
9
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 54%
1.9%
10
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
11
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
12
Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses
44 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
13
Emergency Medicine Journal
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
14
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
15
ERJ Open Research
44 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
16
BMJ Global Health
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
17
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
18
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
19
Journal of Infection and Public Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
20
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
21
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
22
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
23
Journal of Clinical Pathology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
24
Life
27 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
25
Frontiers in Immunology
586 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
26
The Lancet Regional Health - Europe
32 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
27
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
28
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
29
Medicine
30 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%