Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8529352

Interactive database management (IDM).

R Othman
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Interactive database management (IDM) is a data editing software that provides complete data editing at the time of initial data entry when information is 'fresh at hand'. Under the new interactive system, initial data recording is subjected to instant data editing by the interactive computer software logic. Data are immediately entered in final form to the database and are available for analysis. IDM continuously checks all variables for acceptability, completeness, and consistency. IDM does not allow form duplication. Many functions including backups have been automated. The interactive system can export the database to other systems. The software has been implemented for two Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies (CCSHS #5 and CSP #385) which collect data for 1400 and 1000 variables, respectively at 28 VA medical centers. IDM is extremely user friendly and simple to operate. Researchers with no computer background can be trained quickly and easily to use the system. IDM is deployed on notebook microcomputers making it portable for use anywhere in the hospital setting.

Explore related subjects

Clinical Trials as TopicComputer User TrainingData CollectionDatabase Management SystemsHumansMedical Record LinkageMedical Records Systems, ComputerizedMicrocomputersMulticenter Studies as TopicUser-Computer InterfaceJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R Othman. 1995. Interactive database management (IDM).. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2607(95)01682-j

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2000

Generalized treatment effects for clinical trials.

Practice in the analysis of clinical trials with continuously measured endpoints is to focus on the difference or percentage change in mean or median response. However, treatments may have effects on the distribution of responses other than on the average response. We sought an approach to such generalized treatment effects that: (i) targets a parameter that is easily understood by our clinical colleagues; and (ii) employs confidence intervals as the basis for inference. We consider one such approach based on work in reliability theory, namely setting Pr[Y>X] as the target parameter, and compare this approach to an earlier one due to O'Brien. The two approaches have similar properties when they both seek to reject the null hypothesis of no effect due to different variances but differ when the larger variance corresponds to the larger mean. In that case, our approach views that the larger variance attenuates the effect of the larger mean. Out suggested approach applies easily to positive control (clinical) equivalence trials.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2000

Penny-wise and pound-foolish: the impact of measurement error on sample size requirements in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Clinical research studies must compensate for measurement error by increasing the number of subjects that are studied, thereby increasing the financial costs of research and exposing greater numbers of subjects to study risks. In this article, we model the relationship between reliability and sample-size requirements and consider the potential tangible cost savings resulting from the decreased number of subjects needed when reliability of raters is improved or multiple ratings are used. METHODS: Standard methods are used to model reliability based on the intraclass correlation coefficient (R) and to perform power calculations. The impact of multiple raters on reliability for a given baseline level of reliability is modeled according to the Spearman Brown formula. RESULTS: Our models demonstrate that meaningful reductions in sample size requirements are gained from improvements in reliability. For example, improving reliability from R = .7 to R = .9 will decreases sample size requirements by 22%. Reliability is improved by training and by the use of the mean of multiple ratings. For example, if the reliability of a single rating is 0.7, the reliability of the mean of two ratings will be 0.8. CONCLUSIONS: The costs to improve reliability either through rater training efforts or use of the mean of multiple ratings is cost effective because of the consequent reduction in number of subjects needed. Efforts to improve reliability and thus reduce subject requirements in a study also may lead to fewer patients bearing the burden of research participation and to a shortening of the duration of studies.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2000

Placebos, active control groups, and the unpredictability paradox.

Randomized controlled trials often rely on placebo control groups to estimate treatment differences. Recently, the high frequency of negative trials and ethical concerns surrounding the use of placebos have brought the use of placebo control groups under increased scrutiny. Although many psychiatric researchers argue that placebo control groups should be replaced with active control groups, we argue that preferential use of active control groups will not reduce the number of negative trials. Rather, we suggest that some of the variation and contradiction in randomized controlled trial results arises from the clinical heterogeneity of patient characteristics, disease severity, comorbidity, and cotherapies. Further characterization of patient heterogeneity, through improved disease taxonomies, severity indices, and classification of comorbid diseases, will serve to reduce clinical heterogeneity among patients and reduce the number of negative trials produced by wide variation in treatment and control response rates.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗