Error Rate Database Form Transcription
Contents |
Health Search databasePMCAll DatabasesAssemblyBioProjectBioSampleBioSystemsBooksClinVarCloneConserved DomainsdbGaPdbVarESTGeneGenomeGEO DataSetsGEO ProfilesGSSGTRHomoloGeneMedGenMeSHNCBI Web SiteNLM CatalogNucleotideOMIMPMCPopSetProbeProteinProtein ClustersPubChem BioAssayPubChem CompoundPubChem SubstancePubMedPubMed HealthSNPSparcleSRAStructureTaxonomyToolKitToolKitAllToolKitBookToolKitBookghUniGeneSearch termSearch Advanced Journal list Help Journal ListHHS Author ManuscriptsPMC3777611 Drug average data entry error rate Inf J. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 Sep 19.Published in
Human Error Rate Statistics
final edited form as:Drug Inf J. 2011 Jul; 45(4): 421–430. doi: 10.1177/009286151104500404PMCID: PMC3777611NIHMSID: NIHMS511014Evaluation of Data Entry
Typical Data Entry Error Rates
Errors and Data Changes to an Electronic Data Capture Clinical Trial DatabaseJules T. Mitchel, MBA, PhD, Yong Joong Kim, MS, Joonhyuk Choi, BS, Glen Park, PharmD, Silvana Cappi,
Acceptable Error Rate Six Sigma
MSc, MBA, David Horn, MA, Morgan Kist, and Ralph B. D′Agostino, Jr., PhDJules T. Mitchel, President, Target Health Inc, New York;Contributor Information.Jules T. Mitchel, Target Health Inc, 261 Madison Avenue, 24th Floor, New York, NY 10016 (Email: moc.htlaehtegrat@lehctimseluj).Author information ► Copyright and License information ►Copyright notice and DisclaimerSee other articles in PMC that cite the published article.AbstractMonitoring data entry error rate calculation of clinical trials includes several disciplines, stakeholders, and skill sets. The aim of the present study was to identify database changes and data entry errors to an electronic data capture (EDC) clinical trial database, and to access the impact of the changes. To accomblish the aim, Target e*CRF was used as the EDC tool for a multinational, dose-finding, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel, placebo-controlled trial to investigate efficacy and safety of a new treatment in men with lower urinary tract symptoms associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia. The main errors observed were simple transcription errors from the paper source documents to the EDC database. This observation was to be expected, since every transaction has an inherant error rate. What and how to monitor must be assessed within the risk-based monitoring section of the comprehensive data monitoring plan. With the advent of direct data entry, and the elimination of the requirement to transcribe from a paper source record to an EDC system, error rates should go down dramatically. In addition, protocol violat
Download Full-text PDF Reducing Errors from the Electronic Transcription of Data Collected on Paper Forms: A Research Data Case StudyArticle (PDF Available) in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 15(3):386-9 · February 2008 with 127 ReadsDOI: 10.1197/jamia.M2381 data entry accuracy standards · Source: PubMed1st Monika Wahi34.54 · Laboure College2nd David V Parks3rd Robert C ways to reduce data entry errors Skeate4th Steven B Goldin30.47 · 21st Century OncologyAbstractWe conducted a reliability study comparing single data entry (SE) into a Microsoft single data entry error rate Excel spreadsheet to entry using the existing forms (EF) feature of the Teleforms software system, in which optical character recognition is used to capture data off of paper forms designed in non-Teleforms software https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3777611/ programs. We compared the transcription of data from multiple paper forms from over 100 research participants representing almost 20,000 data entry fields. Error rates for SE were significantly lower than those for EF, so we chose SE for data entry in our study. Data transcription strategies from paper to electronic format should be chosen based on evidence from formal evaluations, and their design should be contemplated https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5543415_Reducing_Errors_from_the_Electronic_Transcription_of_Data_Collected_on_Paper_Forms_A_Research_Data_Case_Study during the paper forms development stage.Discover the world's research10+ million members100+ million publications100k+ research projectsJoin for free Case Report 䡲Reducing Errors from the Electronic Transcription of DataCollected on Paper Forms: A Research Data Case StudyMONIKA M. WAHI, MPH, DAVID V. PARKS, BSEE, MBA, ROBERT C. SKEATE, MD,STEVEN B. GOLDIN, MD, PHDAbstract We conducted a reliability study comparing single data entry (SE) into a Microsoft Excelspreadsheet to entry using the existing forms (EF) feature of the Teleforms software system, in which opticalcharacter recognition is used to capture data off of paper forms designed in non-Teleforms software programs. Wecompared the transcription of data from multiple paper forms from over 100 research participants representingalmost 20,000 data entry fields. Error rates for SE were significantly lower than those for EF, so we chose SE fordata entry in our study. Data transcription strategies from paper to electronic format should be chosen based onevidence from formal evaluations, and their design should be contemplated during the paper forms developmentstage.䡲 J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008;15:386 –389. DOI 10.1197/jamia.M2381.IntroductionTranscription of data from paper forms into an electronicdatabase can be a nontrivial source of error.1–3 Despite thisfact, and often for valid reasons, data collection is ofteninitiat
across studies. However only fairly simple actions are used in the denominator. The Klemmer and Snyder study shows that much lower error rates are possible--in this case for people whose job consisted http://panko.shidler.hawaii.edu/HumanErr/Basic.htm almost entirely of data entry. The error rate for more complex logic errors is about 5%, based primarily on data on other pages, especially the program development page. Study Detail Error Rate Baddeley & Longman [1973] Entering mail codes. Errors after correction. Per mail code. 0.5% Chedru & Geschwind [1972] Grammatical errors per word 1.1% Dhillon [1986] Reading a gauge incorrectly. Per read. 0.5% Dremen and Berry [1995] Percentage error error rate in security analysts' earnings forecasts for reporting earnings. 1980 / 1985 / 1990. That is, size of error rather than frequency of error. 30% 52% 65% Edmondson [1996] Errors per medication in hospital, based on data presented in the paper. Per dose. 1.6% Grudin [1983] Error rate per keystroke for six expert typists. Told not to correct errors, although some did. Per keystroke. 1% Hotopf [1980] S sample (speech errors). Per word 0.2% data entry error Hotopf [1980] W sample (written exam). Per word 0.9% Hotopf [1980] 10 undergraduates write for 30 minutes, grammatical and spelling errors per word 1.6% Klemmer [1962] Keypunch machine operators, errors per character 0.02% to 0.06% Klemmer [1962] Bank machine operators, errors per check 0.03% Kukich [1992] Nonword spelling errors in uses of telecommunication devices for the deaf. 40,000 words (strings). Per string. 6% Mathias, MacKenzie & Buxton [1996] 10 touch typists averaging 58 words per minute. No error correction. In last session. Per keystroke. 4% Mattson & Baars [1992] Typing study with secretaries and clerks. Nonsense words. Per nonsense word. 7.4% Melchers & Harrington [1982] Students performing calculator tasks and table lookup tasks. Per multipart calculation. Per table lookup. Etc. 1%-2% Mitton [1987] Study of 170,016 errors in high-school essays, spelling errors. Per word. 2.4% Potter [1995] Errors in making entries in an aircraft flight management system. Per keystroke. Higher if heavy workload. 10.0% Rabbit [1990] Flash one of two letters on display screen. Subject hits one of two keys in response. After correction. Per choice. 0.6% Schoonard & Boies [1975] Line-oriented text editor. Error rate per word. Without correction / with error correction. 3.4% / 0.52% Shaffer & Hardwick [1968] Residual typing errors per character. Subjects with error rates higher than 2.5% were exclud