P06 A comparison of key data entry versus FAX data entry, accuracy and time

Lancaster, Scott; Hallstrom, Al; McBride, Ruth; Morris, Mary E.

doi:10.1016/0197-2456(95)90486-o

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Likewise, in some manuscripts, error rates were reported for more than 1 process step; for example, medical record-to-case report form (CRF) or source-to-CRF, CRF-to-rst entry, rst entryto-second entry, or CRF-to-clean le. A total of 22 manuscripts reported results for more than 1 processing step, process, or database, 9,22,33,35,[37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54] providing a total of 124 data points normalized as number of errors per 10,000 elds and demonstrating the dispersion over time of the health-related research literature with respect to data accuracy. During the meta-analysis, 9 outliers were detected and excluded (Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Error Rates of Data Processing Methods in Clinical Research: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Garza

Williams

Ounpraseuth

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Over the last 30 years, empirical assessments of data accuracy in clinical research have been reported in the literature. Although there have been articles summarizing results reported in multiple papers, there has been little synthesis of these results. Further, although notable exceptions exist, little evidence has been obtained regarding the relative accuracy of different data processing methods. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify clinical research studies that evaluated the quality of data obtained from data processing methods typically used in clinical research (e.g., medical record abstraction, optical scanning, single-data entry, and double-data entry). A total of 93 papers meeting our inclusion criteria were categorized according to their data processing methods. Quantitative information on data accuracy was abstracted from the articles and pooled. Meta-analysis of single proportions based on an inverse variance method and generalized linear mixed model approach of studies from the literature were used to derive an overall estimate of error rates across data processing methods for comparison. Results: Review of the literature indicated that the accuracy associated with data processing methods varies widely, with error rates ranging from 2 errors per 10,000 fields to 2,784errors per 10,000 fields. The medical record abstraction process for data acquisition in clinical research was associated with both high and highly variable error rates, with a variability of 3 orders of magnitude in accuracy (70 – 2,784 errors per 10,000 fields). Error rates for data processed with optical methods were comparable to data processed using single-data entry (2 – 358 vs. 4 – 650 per 10,000 fields, respectively). In comparison, double-data entry was associated with the lowest error rates (4 – 33 per 10,000 fields). Conclusions: Data processing and cleaning methods may explain a significant amount of the variability in data accuracy.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Error Rates of Data Processing Methods in Clinical Research: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Garza

Williams

Ounpraseuth

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Likewise, in some manuscripts, error rates were reported for more than 1 process step; for example, medical record-to-CRF or source-to-CRF, CRF-to-first entry, first entry-to-second entry, or CRF-to-clean file. A total of 22 manuscripts reported results for more than 1 processing step or database, 14,29,41,43,[45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62] providing a total of 124 data points normalized as number of errors per 10,000 fields and demonstrating increasing dispersion over time of the health-related research literature with respect to data accuracy. The data processing methods, as reported in the literature, were not mutually exclusive; thus, some articles appear in more than 1 category (see Additional File 1, Appendix A, Table A5).…”

Section: Manuscripts Included For Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Error Rates of Data Processing Methods in Clinical Research: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Manuscripts Identified Through PubMed

Garza,

Williams,

Ounpraseuth

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: In clinical research, prevention of systematic and random errors of data collected is paramount to ensuring reproducibility of trial results and the safety and efficacy of the resulting interventions. Over the last 40 years, empirical assessments of data accuracy in clinical research have been reported in the literature. Although there have been reports of data error and discrepancy rates in clinical studies, there has been little systematic synthesis of these results. Further, although notable exceptions exist, little evidence exists regarding the relative accuracy of different data processing methods. We aim to address this gap by evaluating error rates for 4 data processing methods. Methods:A systematic review of the literature identified through PubMed was performed to identify studies that evaluated the quality of data obtained through data processing methods typically used in clinical trials: medical record abstraction (MRA), optical scanning, single-data entry, and double-data entry. Quantitative information on data accuracy was abstracted from the manuscripts and pooled. Meta-analysis of single proportions based on the Freeman-Tukey transformation method and the generalized linear mixed model approach were used to derive an overall estimate of error rates across data processing methods used in each study for comparison. Results: A total of 93 papers (published from 1978 to 2008) meeting our inclusion criteria were categorized according to their data processing methods. The accuracy associated with data processing methods varied widely, with error rates ranging from 2 errors per 10,000 fields to 2,784 errors per 10,000 fields. MRA was associated with both high and highly variable error rates, having a pooled error rate of 6.57% (95% CI: 5.51, 7.72). In comparison, the pooled error rates for optical scanning, single-data entry, and double-data entry methods were 0.74% (0.21, 1.60), 0.29% (0.24, 0.35) and 0.14% (0.08, 0.20), respectively. Conclusions: Data processing and cleaning methods may explain a significant amount of the variability in data accuracy. MRA error rates, for example, were high enough to impact decisions made using the data and could necessitate increases in sample sizes to preserve statistical power. Thus, the choice of data processing methods can likely impact process capability and, ultimately, the validity of trial results.

show abstract

Error rates of data processing methods in clinical research: A systematic review and meta-analysis of manuscripts identified through PubMed

Garza,

Williams,

Ounpraseuth

et al. 2025

International Journal of Medical Informatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

P06 A comparison of key data entry versus FAX data entry, accuracy and time

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Error Rates of Data Processing Methods in Clinical Research: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Error Rates of Data Processing Methods in Clinical Research: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Error Rates of Data Processing Methods in Clinical Research: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Manuscripts Identified Through PubMed

Error rates of data processing methods in clinical research: A systematic review and meta-analysis of manuscripts identified through PubMed

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About