朗读法与双数据录入法的检错率比较

Miyuki Kawado , Shiro Hinotsu M.D. , Yutaka Matsuyama Ph.D. , Takuhiro Yamaguchi Ph.D. , Shuji Hashimoto Ph.D. , Yasuo Ohashi Ph.D.
{"title":"朗读法与双数据录入法的检错率比较","authors":"Miyuki Kawado ,&nbsp;Shiro Hinotsu M.D. ,&nbsp;Yutaka Matsuyama Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Takuhiro Yamaguchi Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Shuji Hashimoto Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Yasuo Ohashi Ph.D.","doi":"10.1016/S0197-2456(03)00089-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>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 (<em>p</em>&lt;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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72706,"journal":{"name":"Controlled clinical trials","volume":"24 5","pages":"Pages 560-569"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S0197-2456(03)00089-8","citationCount":"56","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparison of error detection rates between the reading aloud method and the double data entry method\",\"authors\":\"Miyuki Kawado ,&nbsp;Shiro Hinotsu M.D. ,&nbsp;Yutaka Matsuyama Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Takuhiro Yamaguchi Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Shuji Hashimoto Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Yasuo Ohashi Ph.D.\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/S0197-2456(03)00089-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>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 (<em>p</em>&lt;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.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72706,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Controlled clinical trials\",\"volume\":\"24 5\",\"pages\":\"Pages 560-569\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S0197-2456(03)00089-8\",\"citationCount\":\"56\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Controlled clinical trials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0197245603000898\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Controlled clinical trials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0197245603000898","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 56

摘要

数据录入与验证是临床研究数据管理的重要环节。在日本,一种称为大声朗读法(RA)的视觉比较方法经常被用作双数据输入法(DDE)的替代或补充。在典型的RA方法中,一名操作员一边看着打印的表格或计算机屏幕,一边大声读出先前键入的数据,另一名操作员将声音与病例报告表(crf)上记录的相应数据进行比较,以确认数据是否相同。我们比较了RA方法和DDE方法在日本肾移植注册数据管理系统中的效率。效率是根据检错率和花费的时间来评估的。560个crf被随机分配给两个操作员进行单个数据输入。采用DDE和RA两种方法。在104,720个字段中,有358个字段检测到单个数据输入错误(每个字段错误率= 0.34%)。不同操作人员的DDE方法的检错率为88.3%,同一操作人员的DDE方法的检错率为69.0%,不同操作人员的RA方法的检错率为59.5%,同一操作人员的RA方法的检错率为39.9%。两种验证方法之间以及操作人员类型(相同或不同)之间的这些比率差异显著(p<0.001)。DDE法和RA法的总耗时分别为74.8 h和57.9 h。这些结果表明,在单个数据条目的错误检测中,RA方法优于DDE方法,但其时间成本更低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A comparison of error detection rates between the reading aloud method and the double data entry method

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信