Table 3.

Comparison of relevant mode equivalence meta-analyses

	Gwaltney et al. [7]	Muehlhausen et al. [8]	Campbell et al. [6]	Current study
Review year range	Pre-2007	2007–2013	2007–2014	No restrictions; articles ranged in year of publication from 1995 to 2015
Total studies reviewed	46	72	55	25
Most common correlation coefficient used	ICC	ICC	ICC	ICC
Number of different PROs included	48	117	79	2 (SF-36 and SF-12)
Number of different electronic modalities includeda	3: PC/laptop, tablet, PDA	4: PC, tablet/touchscreen, handheld (PDA/smartphone), IVRS	5: Internet, computer, touchscreen computer, tablet, PDA	4: Web, PC, tablet, handheld
Report mean differences	Average = 0.2% of the scale range Range = − 7.8 to 7.6%	Average = 0.037	NA	Range = 0.01–0.39
Reported agreement	Average = 0.90	Average = 0.88 Range = 0.65–0.99	NA	Range = 0.76–0.91

ICC intraclass correlation coefficient, IVRS interactive voice response system, PC personal computer, PDA personal digital assistant

^aWith the exception of the inclusion of IVRS by Muehlhausen et al. [8], the meta-analyses included the same types of electronic devices, though the way in which they were categorized differed. For example, all meta-analyses included papers that had web-based administrations. Gwaltney et al. [7] and Muehlhausen et al. [8] included these papers as part of the PC/Laptop category, while Campbell et al. [6] and the current study categorized them separately