BioSpace.com

Biotech and Pharmaceutical
News & Jobs
Search the Site
 
   
Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Channel Medical Device and Diagnostics Channel Clinical Research Channel BioSpace Collaborative    Job Seekers:  Register | Login          Employers:  Register | Login  

NEWSLETTERS
Free Newsletters
Archive
My Subscriptions

NEWS
News by Subject
News by Disease
News by Date
PLoS
Search News
Post Your News
JoVE

CAREER NETWORK
Job Seeker Login
Most Recent Jobs
Browse Biotech Jobs
Search Jobs
Post Resume
Career Fairs
Career Resources
For Employers

HOTBEDS
Regional News
US & Canada
  Biotech Bay
  Biotech Beach
  Genetown
  Pharm Country
  BioCapital
  BioMidwest
  Bio NC
  BioForest
  Southern Pharm
  BioCanada East
  US Device
Europe
Asia

DIVERSITY

INVESTOR
Market Summary
News
IPOs

PROFILES
Company Profiles

START UPS
Companies
Events

INTELLIGENCE
Research Store

INDUSTRY EVENTS
Biotech Events
Post an Event
RESOURCES
Real Estate
Business Opportunities

PLoS By Category | Recent PLoS Articles
Non-Clinical Medicine - Public Health and Epidemiology - Surgery

Quality of Data Entry Using Single Entry, Double Entry and Automated Forms Processing–An Example Based on a Study of Patient-Reported Outcomes
Published: Friday, April 06, 2012
Author: Aksel Paulsen et al.

by Aksel Paulsen, Søren Overgaard, Jens Martin Lauritsen

Background

The clinical and scientific usage of patient-reported outcome measures is increasing in the health services. Often paper forms are used. Manual double entry of data is defined as the definitive gold standard for transferring data to an electronic format, but the process is laborious. Automated forms processing may be an alternative, but further validation is warranted.

Methods

200 patients were randomly selected from a cohort of 5777 patients who had previously answered two different questionnaires. The questionnaires were scanned using an automated forms processing technique, as well as processed by single and double manual data entry, using the EpiData Entry data entry program. The main outcome measure was the proportion of correctly entered numbers at question, form and study level.

Results

Manual double-key data entry (error proportion per 1000 fields?=?0.046 (95% CI: 0.001–0.258)) performed better than single-key data entry (error proportion per 1000 fields?=?0.370 (95% CI: 0.160–0.729), (p?=?0.020)). There was no statistical difference between Optical Mark Recognition (error proportion per 1000 fields?=?0.046 (95% CI: 0.001–0.258)) and double-key data entry (p?=?1.000). With the Intelligent Character Recognition method, there was no statistical difference compared to single-key data entry (error proportion per 1000 fields?=?6.734 (95% CI: 0.817–24.113), (p?=?0.656)), as well as double-key data entry (error proportion per 1000 fields?=?3.367 (95% CI: 0.085–18.616)), (p?=?0.319)).

Conclusions

Automated forms processing is a valid alternative to double manual data entry for highly structured forms containing only check boxes, numerical codes and no dates. Automated forms processing can be superior to single manual data entry through a data entry program, depending on the method chosen.

  More...

 

//-->