ArticleHealth science reports2020
Data entry quality of double data entry vs automated form processing technologies: A cohort study validation of optical mark recognition and intelligent character recognition in a clinical setting.
Article in Health science reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- A dataset of study program availability in German higher education between 1971 and 1996.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Clinical cut-offs for hip- and knee arthroplasty outcome - minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM).Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Validity and reliability of the Manchester Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) in one-year postoperative ankle fracture patients-a validation study.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Article
- Urban-Rural Disparities in Community Participation after Spinal Cord Injury in Ontario.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- A pragmatic methodology to extract anesthetic and physiological data from the electronic health record.Paediatric anaesthesia · 2024Article
- Improving the quality of the fracture liaison service through the implementation of a structured health record.BMJ open quality · 2023Article
- Excellent PROM results after fast-track hip and knee arthroplasty with no postoperative restrictions: a cohort study validation of fast-track surgery without postoperative restrictions.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Article
- Data entry quality of double data entry vs automated form processing technologies: A cohort study validation of optical mark recognition and intelligent character recognition in a clinical setting.Health science reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in health services. Paper forms are still often used to register such data. Manual double data entry (DDE) has been defined as the gold standard for transferring data to an electronic format but is laborious and costly. Automated form processing (AFP) is an alternative, but validation in a clinical context is warranted. The study objective was to examine and validate a local hospital AFP setup.
methodsPatients over 18 years of age who were scheduled for knee or hip replacement at Stavanger University Hospital from 2014 to 2017 who answered PROMs were included in the study and contributed PROM data. All paper PROMs were scanned using the AFP techniques of optical mark recognition (OMR) and intelligent character recognition (ICR) and were processed by DDE by health secretaries using a data entry program. OMR and ICR were used to capture different types of data. The main outcome was the proportion of correctly entered numbers, defined as the same response recorded in AFP and DDE or by consulting the original paper questionnaire at the data field, item, and PROM level.
resultsA total of 448 questionnaires from 255 patients were analyzed. There was no statistically significant difference in error proportions per 10 000 data fields between OMR and DDE for data from check boxes (3.52 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.17 to 5.72 and 4.18 (95% CI 2.68-6.53), respectively
conclusionsOMR can produce an error rate that is comparable to that of DDE. In our setup, ICR is still problematic and is highly dependent on manual validation. When AFP is used, data quality should be tested and documented.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.