Literature DB >> 14500053

A comparison of error detection rates between the reading aloud method and the double data entry method.

Miyuki Kawado1, Shiro Hinotsu, Yutaka Matsuyama, Takuhiro Yamaguchi, Shuji Hashimoto, Yasuo Ohashi.   

Abstract

Data entry and its verification are important steps in the process of data management in clinical studies. In Japan, a kind of visual comparison called the reading aloud (RA) method is often used as an alternative to or in addition to the double data entry (DDE) method. In a typical RA method, one operator reads previously keyed data aloud while looking at a printed sheet or computer screen, and another operator compares the voice with the corresponding data recorded on case report forms (CRFs) to confirm whether the data are the same. We compared the efficiency of the RA method with that of the DDE method in the data management system of the Japanese Registry of Renal Transplantation. Efficiency was evaluated in terms of error detection rate and expended time. Five hundred sixty CRFs were randomly allocated to two operators for single data entry. Two types of DDE and RA methods were performed. Single data entry errors were detected in 358 of 104,720 fields (per-field error rate=0.34%). Error detection rates were 88.3% for the DDE method performed by a different operator, 69.0% for the DDE method performed by the same operator, 59.5% for the RA method performed by a different operator, and 39.9% for the RA method performed by the same operator. The differences in these rates were significant (p<0.001) between the two verification methods as well as between the types of operator (same or different). The total expended times were 74.8 hours for the DDE method and 57.9 hours for the RA method. These results suggest that in detecting errors of single data entry, the RA method is inferior to the DDE method, while its time cost is lower.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14500053     DOI: 10.1016/s0197-2456(03)00089-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Control Clin Trials        ISSN: 0197-2456


  13 in total

1.  Short EpiData course: do participants use the data entry tool two years post-training?

Authors:  A M V Kumar; P Chinnakali; H Shewade; V Gupta; P Nagpal; A D Harries
Journal:  Public Health Action       Date:  2015-11-12

2.  Analysis of data errors in clinical research databases.

Authors:  Saveli I Goldberg; Andrzej Niemierko; Alexander Turchin
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2008-11-06

3.  SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials.

Authors:  An-Wen Chan; Jennifer M Tetzlaff; Peter C Gøtzsche; Douglas G Altman; Howard Mann; Jesse A Berlin; Kay Dickersin; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Kenneth F Schulz; Wendy R Parulekar; Karmela Krleza-Jeric; Andreas Laupacis; David Moher
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2013-01-08

4.  Manikin-based simulation: online orientation and student anxiety.

Authors:  Dominic A Giuliano; Marion McGregor; Loretta Howard; Rebecca Taylor; Rachel Statz; Madolyn Linka; Christina Bagnell
Journal:  J Chiropr Educ       Date:  2016-08-01

5.  Data Acquisition and Preprocessing in Studies on Humans: What Is Not Taught in Statistics Classes?

Authors:  Yeyi Zhu; Ladia M Hernandez; Peter Mueller; Yongquan Dong; Michele R Forman
Journal:  Am Stat       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 8.710

6.  Comparing the accuracy and speed of four data-checking methods.

Authors:  Kimberly A Barchard; Andrew J Freeman; Elizabeth Ochoa; Amber K Stephens
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2020-02

7.  Extracting Medical Information from Paper COVID-19 Assessment Forms.

Authors:  Jacob D Schultz; Colin G White-Dzuro; Cheng Ye; Joseph R Coco; Janet M Myers; Claude Shackelford; S Trent Rosenbloom; Daniel Fabbri
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2021-03-10       Impact factor: 2.342

8.  Online information seeking by patients with bipolar disorder: results from an international multisite survey.

Authors:  Jörn Conell; Rita Bauer; Tasha Glenn; Martin Alda; Raffaella Ardau; Bernhard T Baune; Michael Berk; Yuly Bersudsky; Amy Bilderbeck; Alberto Bocchetta; Letizia Bossini; Angela Marianne Paredes Castro; Eric Yat Wo Cheung; Caterina Chillotti; Sabine Choppin; Maria Del Zompo; Rodrigo Dias; Seetal Dodd; Anne Duffy; Bruno Etain; Andrea Fagiolini; Julie Garnham; John Geddes; Jonas Gildebro; Ana Gonzalez-Pinto; Guy M Goodwin; Paul Grof; Hirohiko Harima; Stefanie Hassel; Chantal Henry; Diego Hidalgo-Mazzei; Vaisnvy Kapur; Girish Kunigiri; Beny Lafer; Chun Lam; Erik Roj Larsen; Ute Lewitzka; Rasmus Licht; Anne Hvenegaard Lund; Blazej Misiak; Patryk Piotrowski; Scott Monteith; Rodrigo Munoz; Takako Nakanotani; René E Nielsen; Claire O'Donovan; Yasushi Okamura; Yamima Osher; Andreas Reif; Philipp Ritter; Janusz K Rybakowski; Kemal Sagduyu; Brett Sawchuk; Elon Schwartz; Ângela Miranda Scippa; Claire Slaney; Ahmad Hatim Sulaiman; Kirsi Suominen; Aleksandra Suwalska; Peter Tam; Yoshitaka Tatebayashi; Leonardo Tondo; Eduard Vieta; Maj Vinberg; Biju Viswanath; Julia Volkert; Mark Zetin; Iñaki Zorrilla; Peter C Whybrow; Michael Bauer
Journal:  Int J Bipolar Disord       Date:  2016-08-24

9.  The utility of multivariate outlier detection techniques for data quality evaluation in large studies: an application within the ONDRI project.

Authors:  Kelly M Sunderland; Derek Beaton; Julia Fraser; Donna Kwan; Paula M McLaughlin; Manuel Montero-Odasso; Alicia J Peltsch; Frederico Pieruccini-Faria; Demetrios J Sahlas; Richard H Swartz; Stephen C Strother; Malcolm A Binns
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2019-05-15       Impact factor: 4.615

10.  Quantifying data quality for clinical trials using electronic data capture.

Authors:  Meredith L Nahm; Carl F Pieper; Maureen M Cunningham
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2008-08-25       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.