			Home About us Contact

Entry Errors (entry + error)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Medical Sciences	75%

Selected Abstracts

Reliability of the SNAP (score of neonatal acute p00hysiology) data collection in mechanically ventilated term babies in New South Wales, Australia

ACTA PAEDIATRICA, Issue 4 2002
L Sutton
The aim of this population-based, case-control, cohort study was to report inter-rater reliability between the New South Wales Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Data Collection (NICUS) audit nurses' collection of SNAP (OS) and a research nurse's SNAP data as the audit SNAP (AS). The study was carried out in Sydney and four large rural/urban health areas in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. The subjects,182 singleton term infants with no major congenital anomalies,were admitted to a tertiary neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) for mechanical ventilation. SNAP data were collected on the 182 case infants, born between 1 January and 31 December 1996, by clinical audit officers in the nine tertiary NICUs in NSW. The research officer conducted an audit of the original SNAP score on all infants. The data were examined using Pearson's correlation coefficient, weighted kappa, a plot of difference in SNAP against mean SNAP and Wilcoxon's signed rank sum test. Pearson's correlation coefficient between the OS and AS data was 0.80. Median (interquartile range) SNAP was 13 (9,19) for the OS and 14 (10,20) for the AS. Weighted kappa was highest for highest heart rate, paO2, temperature (°C), oxygenation index, haematocrit, platelet count, lowest serum sodium, lowest blood glucose and seizure. In 17 (9%) infants, OS and AS differed by ,10, 14 because of an original data collection error, 1 data entry error, 1 audit error and 1 for both data collection and data entry errors. Conclusion: If SNAP is to be incorporated into any routine NICU data collection, it should be audited regularly on a sample of records. It is important to standardize and adhere to strict definitions for parameters before the collection of SNAP data. [source]

Technical note: An R program for automating bone cross section reconstruction

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, Issue 4 2010
Adam D. Sylvester
Abstract Many recent studies have used long bone cross-sectional geometric properties in various comparative analyses. Methods have been described for reconstructing diaphyseal cross sections from external molds and biplanar radiographs that produce accurate results (within 5% of true values on average). The manual image processing required, however, is both time and labor intensive. A new freely available program developed here for the computational freeware, R, automates much of the process. This study compares cross-sectional properties calculated using the new R program to those from peripheral quantitative CT (pQCT) and the original manual method. We find that the R program works aswell as the original manual image processing for most cross sections eliminates the chance for entry errors at several steps and greatly speeds up data collection. Am J Phys Anthropol 142:665,669, 2010. © 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source]

Data reliability and structure in the Swedish National Cataract Register

ACTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA, Issue 5 2001
Ingemar Håkansson
ABSTRACT. Purpose: A Swedish National Cataract Register was instituted in 1992, monitoring nearly all cataract operations in Sweden, and since its inception comprising about 95% of all operations. Data from a total of approximately 290 000 operations have been collected during 1992,1998. Data quality is an important factor, and we have therefore assessed the various types and frequencies of data entry errors in the material. Methods: The medical records for all operations in five selected participating clinics were retrieved for a set month. Each data transfer step from the record to the final data base was monitored for a total of 574 operations. A total of 10 variables were recorded for each operation. Results: Significant sources of error were absent in most variables. However, possibly important errors appeared in three: "date entering waiting list", "preoperative best corrected visual acuity in the operated eye", or "visual acuity in the fellow eye". There were also noteworthy variations between the five clinics, different for different parameters. Errors were predominantly prone to appear at the very first step of registration. In most cases this was due to deviations from the data collection instructions. Conclusions: The reliability is good for most values entered into the register, but it is important to ensure that data definitions are exact and adhered to. Repeated information to the involved persons on how to fill in the forms appears to be a requisite for maintaining good input quality. [source]