| Title |
Development of a data entry auditing protocol and quality assurance for a tissue bank database
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cell and Tissue Banking, February 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10561-011-9240-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matloob Khushi, Jane E. Carpenter, Rosemary L. Balleine, Christine L. Clarke |
| Abstract |
Human transcription error is an acknowledged risk when extracting information from paper records for entry into a database. For a tissue bank, it is critical that accurate data are provided to researchers with approved access to tissue bank material. The challenges of tissue bank data collection include manual extraction of data from complex medical reports that are accessed from a number of sources and that differ in style and layout. As a quality assurance measure, the Breast Cancer Tissue Bank (http:\\www.abctb.org.au) has implemented an auditing protocol and in order to efficiently execute the process, has developed an open source database plug-in tool (eAuditor) to assist in auditing of data held in our tissue bank database. Using eAuditor, we have identified that human entry errors range from 0.01% when entering donor's clinical follow-up details, to 0.53% when entering pathological details, highlighting the importance of an audit protocol tool such as eAuditor in a tissue bank database. eAuditor was developed and tested on the Caisis open source clinical-research database; however, it can be integrated in other databases where similar functionality is required. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 28 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 17% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 13% |
| Researcher | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 23% |
| Unknown | 4 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 40% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 10% |
| Psychology | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 4 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 June 2011.
All research outputs
#8,545,748
of 25,397,764 outputs
Outputs from Cell and Tissue Banking
#81
of 311 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,817
of 118,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cell and Tissue Banking
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,397,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 311 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 118,887 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.