Access to data: comparing AccessMed with Query by Review.

Access to data: comparing AccessMed with Query by Review.
复制标题

数据访问:比较 AccessMed 与 Query by Review。

DOI:
10.1136/jamia.1996.96413137
复制
发表时间:
1996
期刊:
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA
影响因子:
--
通讯作者:
Lee,R
Lee,R
中科院分区:
--
文献类型:
--
作者:
Hripcsak,G;Allen,B;Cimino,JJ;Lee,R

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

目的:评价编写患者数据库查询工具的性能。设计:将Query by Review与AccessMed进行比较,AccessMed是一个支持词法匹配和遍历层次和语义链接的词汇表浏览器。七名受试者(医学逻辑模块作者)被要求使用这两种工具来收集执行八项实验室查询所需的词汇。度量:正确查询的比例;主体间协议。结果:Query by Review的性能优于AccessMed(38%对18%,p = 0.002),但这两个数字都很低。较差的主体间一致性(Query by Review为28%,AccessMed为21%)证实了相对较低的性能。受试者似乎在区分实验室测试和实验室电池、选择与所需的特定数据类型相关的术语以及在词汇表层次结构中使用类方面存在困难。结论:Query by Review的用户界面更受约束,比AccessMed(一个更通用的工具)的性能要好一些。然而,这两种工具都没有达到足够的性能,这表明为临床数据库制定查询的困难和需要进一步的工作。
Objective: To evaluate the performance of tools for authoring patient database queries.Design: Query by Review, a tool that exploits the training that users have undergone to master a result review system, was compared with AccessMed, a vocabulary browser that supports lexical matching and the traversal of hierarchical and semantic links. Seven subjects (Medical Logic Module authors) were asked to use both tools to gather the vocabulary terms necessary to perform each of eight laboratory queries.Measurements: The proportion of queries that were correct; inter subject agreement.Results: Query by Review had better performance than AccessMed (38% correct queries versus 18%, p = 0.002), but both figures were low. Poor intersubject agreement (28% for Query by Review and 21% for AccessMed) corroborated the relatively low performance. Subjects appeared to have trouble distinguishing laboratory tests from laboratory batteries, picking terms relevant to the particular data type required, and using classes in the vocabulary's hierarchy.Conclusion: Query by Review, with its more constrained user interface, performed somewhat better than AccessMed, a more general tool. Neither tool achieved adequate performance, however, which points to the difficulty of formulating a query for a clinical database and the need for further work.