Quality of data entry using single entry, double entry and automated forms processing--an example based on a study of patient-reported outcomes.

<h4>Background</h4>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 proces...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Aksel Paulsen, Søren Overgaard, Jens Martin Lauritsen
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2012
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/eb28866771ef41bbb62b97d1a687e03b
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:eb28866771ef41bbb62b97d1a687e03b
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:eb28866771ef41bbb62b97d1a687e03b2021-11-18T07:22:58ZQuality of data entry using single entry, double entry and automated forms processing--an example based on a study of patient-reported outcomes.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0035087https://doaj.org/article/eb28866771ef41bbb62b97d1a687e03b2012-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/22493733/pdf/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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.<h4>Results</h4>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)).<h4>Conclusions</h4>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.Aksel PaulsenSøren OvergaardJens Martin LauritsenPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 7, Iss 4, p e35087 (2012)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Aksel Paulsen Søren Overgaard Jens Martin Lauritsen Quality of data entry using single entry, double entry and automated forms processing--an example based on a study of patient-reported outcomes.
description	<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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.<h4>Results</h4>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)).<h4>Conclusions</h4>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.
format	article
author	Aksel Paulsen Søren Overgaard Jens Martin Lauritsen
author_facet	Aksel Paulsen Søren Overgaard Jens Martin Lauritsen
author_sort	Aksel Paulsen
title	Quality of data entry using single entry, double entry and automated forms processing--an example based on a study of patient-reported outcomes.
title_short	Quality of data entry using single entry, double entry and automated forms processing--an example based on a study of patient-reported outcomes.
title_full	Quality of data entry using single entry, double entry and automated forms processing--an example based on a study of patient-reported outcomes.
title_fullStr	Quality of data entry using single entry, double entry and automated forms processing--an example based on a study of patient-reported outcomes.
title_full_unstemmed	Quality of data entry using single entry, double entry and automated forms processing--an example based on a study of patient-reported outcomes.
title_sort	quality of data entry using single entry, double entry and automated forms processing--an example based on a study of patient-reported outcomes.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2012
url	https://doaj.org/article/eb28866771ef41bbb62b97d1a687e03b
work_keys_str_mv	AT akselpaulsen qualityofdataentryusingsingleentrydoubleentryandautomatedformsprocessinganexamplebasedonastudyofpatientreportedoutcomes AT sørenovergaard qualityofdataentryusingsingleentrydoubleentryandautomatedformsprocessinganexamplebasedonastudyofpatientreportedoutcomes AT jensmartinlauritsen qualityofdataentryusingsingleentrydoubleentryandautomatedformsprocessinganexamplebasedonastudyofpatientreportedoutcomes
_version_	1718423570421383168

Quality of data entry using single entry, double entry and automated forms processing--an example based on a study of patient-reported outcomes.

Ejemplares similares