PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 14715168

HeiDATAProVIT-Heidelberg data archiving, tag assembling, processing and visualization tool.

Abstract

The demands that have to be met by software tools for biomedical data evaluation strongly differ depending on the background of their application. In clinical routine emphasis is placed on ease of handling and application of standardized procedures, whereas in biomedical research the main focus lies on flexibility and extensibility. These contradictory requirements are reflected by the design principles of existing software solutions: programs for routine application are barely extensible or modifiable by the user and the complexity of highly flexible data processing tools for research purposes hampers the application of new methods to larger data volumes. This gap poses technical difficulties to the transfer of methods from research into clinical routine. The software we present in this paper bridges this discrepancy by incorporating two different levels of application. The lower level offers options to integrate custom written MATLAB((R)) processing routines and to add new evaluation schemes to a pool of existing procedures. The higher level allows for performing standard evaluations by accessing and applying these previously defined procedures. Four basic concepts were introduced to ensure that the program is both maximally flexible on a lower level and readily applicable on a higher level: the tag concept, the concept of modularized visualization, the dummy file concept, and the batchjob concept. These concepts are the key to flexibly assemble and apply the three universal stages of data evaluation: (1) archiving of acquired data, (2) processing the data using signal processing algorithms and (3) visualizing the results in appropriate graphical formats. The present paper illustrates the four concepts within the two levels of the software architecture. The basic functionality and usefulness of the program are demonstrated using an evaluation of gait analysis data as sample application. In summary, this software tool closely integrates a database for biomedical datasets and an extensible pool of evaluation and visualization procedures realized using MATLAB((R)). It is well suited both for data processing in clinical routine and for evaluation of measurement data in any medical research project.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Matthias Schablowski, Joachim Schweidler, Rüdiger Rupp. 2004. HeiDATAProVIT-Heidelberg data archiving, tag assembling, processing and visualization tool.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-2607(03)00015-4

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Optimal search strategies for retrieving scientifically strong studies of diagnosis from Medline: analytical survey.

OBJECTIVE: To develop optimal search strategies in Medline for retrieving sound clinical studies on the diagnosis of health disorders. DESIGN: Analytical survey. SETTING: Medline, 2000. PARTICIPANTS: 170 journals for 2000 of which 161 were indexed in Medline. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The sensitivity, specificity, precision ("positive predictive value"), and accuracy of 4862 unique terms in 17,287 combinations were determined by comparison with a hand search of all articles (the "gold standard") in 161 journals published during 2000 (49,028 articles). RESULTS: Only 147 (18.9%) of 778 articles about diagnostic tests met basic criteria for scientific merit. Combinations of search terms reached peak sensitivities of 98.6% at a specificity of 74.3%. Compared with best single terms, best multiple terms increased sensitivity for sound studies by 6.8% (absolute increase), while also increasing specificity (absolute increase 6.0%) when sensitivity was maximised. When terms were combined to maximise specificity, the single term, specificity.tw. (98.4%), outperformed combinations of terms. The strategies newly reported in this paper outperformed other validated search strategies except for one strategy that had slightly higher sensitivity (99.3% v 98.6%) but lower specificity (54.7% v 74.3%). CONCLUSION: New empirical search strategies in Medline can optimise retrieval of articles reporting high quality clinical studies of diagnosis.

Information Storage and Retrieval↗

Should systematic reviews include searches for published errata?

Our objective was to perform a pilot study to estimate the proportion of published errata linked to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that are worthwhile obtaining when doing a systematic review. medline was searched for records that had both 'randomized-controlled-trial' in the publication type field and 'erratum' in the comments field. One hundred records from four general medical journals were examined independently from two different perspectives. From the information specialist's perspective, 74% of the errata were considered worthwhile obtaining; these were mainly errors in tables or figures. Another 9% described less serious errors, but were worth obtaining if easily available. The other 17% were minor errors. From the perspective of the experienced reviewer/public health consultant, 5% of errata were classified as likely to affect a meta-analysis, and 10% as having significant errors that would affect the interpretation of the RCT, but no effect on a meta-analysis; 85% were not considered important enough to affect either. About 5% of errata to RCTs appeared to matter in terms of changing the final conclusions of a systematic review. However, the majority of errata were considered to be worthwhile obtaining, on the basis that having full and accurate data can reduce confusion and save reviewers time.

Information Storage and Retrieval↗

How does your searching grow? A survey of search preferences and the use of optimal search strategies in the identification of qualitative research.

The objective was to gain an overview of researchers experiences of searching the literature, with particular reference to the use of optimal search strategies (OSSs) and searching for qualitative research studies. A 13-item semi-structured questionnaire investigating search behaviour was distributed to members of the Cochrane Qualitative Methods Network. Follow-up interviews were conducted with a subset of respondents to explore issues raised and clarify points of ambiguity. Findings were analysed using data reduction, data displays and verification techniques. Eighty-six per cent of distributed questionnaires were returned. All respondents reported searching electronic databases as part of their literature search, with 80% expressing a preference for searching alone or with colleagues. Forty-one per cent indicated that they consider a database search to be only one aspect of a comprehensive literature search. The rigour and availability of OSSs was a concern for 30% of respondents. Twenty-five per cent of respondents had searched for qualitative studies, although the difficulty of locating this type of literature was considered problematic because of the varied use of the term 'qualitative'. Whilst the majority of respondents reported using OSSs in some capacity, reservations were expressed about their ability to facilitate a comprehensive search. Replies indicated a belief that OSSs can reduce the sensitivity of a search, and might limit the breadth of coverage required. A greater appreciation of the availability and purpose of OSSs-including the ability to optimize either sensitivity or recall-is needed if this enhanced approach to accurate data retrieval and potential improvement in time management is to become widespread.

Information Storage and Retrieval↗