DBCG hypo trial validation of radiotherapy parameters from a national data bank versus manual reporting
Autor: | M.S. Thomsen, Carsten Brink, Jonas Westberg, Ebbe Laugaard Lorenzen, E.S. Yates, Ingelise Jensen, Birgitte Vrou Offersen, Martin Berg, Simon L. Krogh |
---|---|
Jazyk: | angličtina |
Rok vydání: | 2018 |
Předmět: |
Quality Control
Databases Factual Denmark MEDLINE Breast Neoplasms Breast Neoplasms/radiotherapy Field (computer science) 030218 nuclear medicine & medical imaging 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Statistics Journal Article Medicine Data bank Humans Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging Categorical variable National data Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Contingency table business.industry Hematology General Medicine Oncology 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis Scatter plot Data quality Female Radiotherapy Adjuvant Dose Fractionation Radiation business |
Zdroj: | Brink, C, Lorenzen, E L, Krogh, S L, Westberg, J, Berg, M, Jensen, I, Thomsen, M S, Yates, E S & Offersen, B V 2018, ' DBCG hypo trial validation of radiotherapy parameters from a national data bank versus manual reporting ', Acta Oncologica, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 107-112 . https://doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2017.1406140 |
Popis: | INTRODUCTION:The current study evaluates the data quality achievable using a national data bank for reporting radiotherapy parameters relative to the classical manual reporting method of selected parameters.METHODS:The data comparison is based on 1522 Danish patients of the DBCG hypo trial with data stored in the Danish national radiotherapy data bank. In line with standard DBCG trial practice selected parameters were also reported manually to the DBCG database. Categorical variables are compared using contingency tables, and comparison of continuous parameters is presented in scatter plots.RESULTS:For categorical variables 25 differences between the data bank and manual values were located. Of these 23 were related to mistakes in the manual reported value whilst the remaining two were a wrong classification in the data bank. The wrong classification in the data bank was related to lack of dose information, since the two patients had been treated with an electron boost based on a manual calculation, thus data was not exported to the data bank, and this was not detected prior to comparison with the manual data. For a few database fields in the manual data an ambiguity of the parameter definition of the specific field is seen in the data. This was not the case for the data bank, which extract all data consistently.CONCLUSIONS:In terms of data quality the data bank is superior to manually reported values. However, there is a need to allocate resources for checking the validity of the available data as well as ensuring that all relevant data is present. The data bank contains more detailed information, and thus facilitates research related to the actual dose distribution in the patients. INTRODUCTION: The current study evaluates the data quality achievable using a national data bank for reporting radiotherapy parameters relative to the classical manual reporting method of selected parameters.METHODS: The data comparison is based on 1522 Danish patients of the DBCG hypo trial with data stored in the Danish national radiotherapy data bank. In line with standard DBCG trial practice selected parameters were also reported manually to the DBCG database. Categorical variables are compared using contingency tables, and comparison of continuous parameters is presented in scatter plots.RESULTS: For categorical variables 25 differences between the data bank and manual values were located. Of these 23 were related to mistakes in the manual reported value whilst the remaining two were a wrong classification in the data bank. The wrong classification in the data bank was related to lack of dose information, since the two patients had been treated with an electron boost based on a manual calculation, thus data was not exported to the data bank, and this was not detected prior to comparison with the manual data. For a few database fields in the manual data an ambiguity of the parameter definition of the specific field is seen in the data. This was not the case for the data bank, which extract all data consistently.CONCLUSIONS: In terms of data quality the data bank is superior to manually reported values. However, there is a need to allocate resources for checking the validity of the available data as well as ensuring that all relevant data is present. The data bank contains more detailed information, and thus facilitates research related to the actual dose distribution in the patients. |
Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
Externí odkaz: |