- EpiData-list - University of Manitoba Mailing Lists

re: variable names
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 23 Mar '06

23 Mar '06

You can change this by selecting the option to use the first word as the field name (under File, Options, Create data file tab). This is described in the help files. You may have to reset your options when you install a new version. There is a newer version on epidata.dk now (12 March 2006) Jamie ============================= In the latest version of Epidata (12012006) field names is not functioning well. I choose field names to be the first word in the line and the software assigne the name with 10 first characters in the line. I can change field names but it is a lot of work. Is it any other solution? Luciana Petrucci Gigante

1 0

First word versus first 10 characters for field naming in EpiData Entry v3.1 (12012006)
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 23 Mar '06

23 Mar '06

We are looking into this problem, which is an error in the installation routine NOT in the actual software once installed. To get the correct behaviour you desire do this: 1. Start epidata.exe 2. Go into the options (see file menu) 3. Choose the "Create data file" part 4. Select either "first word" or "automatic" as you please. The issue in relation to installation will be solved, but until so do as shown in point 1-4. Regards Jens Lauritsen EpiData Association

1 0

Field names
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 23 Mar '06

23 Mar '06

In the latest version of Epidata (12012006) field names is not functioning well. I choose field names to be the first word in the line and the software assigne the name with 10 first characters in the line. I can change field names but it is a lot of work. Is it any other solution? Luciana Petrucci Gigante luciana(a)homemail.com

1 0

tabulation in documentation->codebook
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 22 Mar '06

22 Mar '06

I have been creating a dataset using epidata. I was looking through the documentation->codebook to get a sense of the distribution of values for the variables. I just noticed that the missing values appear at an almost random point in the otherwise ordered list (in this example, between 9 and 10). tabulation: Freq. Pct. Value Label 2 3.8 3 1 1.9 4 2 3.8 5 6 11.5 7 7 13.5 8 7 13.5 9 6 11.5 . 21 40.4 10 Any ideas why this might happen? thanks. Richard Herrell NIH --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.

1 0

RE: EpiData-list Digest, Vol 29, Issue 8
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 22 Mar '06

22 Mar '06

either a) or c)with notification -----Original Message----- From: epidata-list-bounces(a)lists.umanitoba.ca on behalf of epidata-list-request(a)lists.umanitoba.ca Sent: Mon 3/20/2006 1:23 PM To: epidata-list(a)lists.umanitoba.ca Cc: Subject: EpiData-list Digest, Vol 29, Issue 8 Send EpiData-list mailing list submissions to epidata-list(a)lists.umanitoba.ca To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.umanitoba.ca/mailman/listinfo/epidata-list or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to epidata-list-request(a)lists.umanitoba.ca You can reach the person managing the list at epidata-list-owner(a)lists.umanitoba.ca When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of EpiData-list digest..."

1 0

RE: Design decision.... Restricted words
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 21 Mar '06

21 Mar '06

> Should we : > a. Adopt a strategy, where users are warned when creating files where > field names/variables are > given the same names as a restricted word - a warning. > > b. Maintain current where users will find out since either an error or > occur or nothing happens when > they create confusion in this way - a "non-friendly" way towards > users. > > c. A strategy where field names cannot have the same names as functions. > - a restrictive strategy. Hi, I don't fully understand what option a) implies. If an user receives a warning, can (s)he continues working?. And what next?. Will (s)he get an error sometimes?. In my opinion if there is a risk of conflict bettwen a command or funtion name and the name of a field or variable this name should be prohibited. So, i think the most restrictive option should be implemented (whith a very clear message saying "the word XXXXX is a reserved word, choose another for your variable name"). Saludos, Pedro Pedro Arias Bohigas John Ericssons gatan, 12 5 tr 112 22 Stockholm Sweden Phone (cell) 0734421130 Phone (international calls)+46734421130

1 0

Reserved names
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 21 Mar '06

21 Mar '06

If feasible, strategy a) would be my preference as it offers two things: first it teaches which field name is reserved, second that it cannot be used. Strategy b) is not user-friendly, and strategy c) is less transparent than strategy a) a. Adopt a strategy, where users are warned when creating files where field names/variables are given the same names as a restricted word - a warning. b. Maintain current where users will find out since either an error or occur or nothing happens when they create confusion in this way - a "non-friendly" way towards users. c. A strategy where field names cannot have the same names as functions. - a restrictive strategy. -- Hans L Rieder, MD, MPH Jetzikofenstr. 12 3038 Kirchlindach Switzerland Tel: +41 31 829 4577 Mob: +41 79 429 9945 Web: http://www.tbrieder.org

1 0

RE: [EpiData-list] Design decision for epidata analysis - missing andrestricted words
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 21 Mar '06

21 Mar '06

I'm also in favour of strategy a). It's certainly the simplest to implement. Gilles -----Message d'origine----- De : epidata-list(a)lists.umanitoba.ca [mailto:epidata-list@lists.umanitoba.ca] Envoyé : dimanche 19 mars 2006 23:21 À : epidata-list(a)lists.umanitoba.ca Objet : Re: [EpiData-list] Design decision for epidata analysis - missing andrestricted words I vote for strategy a) to display a warning - this seems most user friendly and can reduce the problem well. Bests Max On 20 Mar 2006, at 7:34, epidata-list(a)lists.umanitoba.ca wrote: > This mail is technical in nature, if you are not interested in > technical aspects, just delete the mail. > > The issue of how to read ,., in a comma separated file is now solved > and can be tested in v 1.1, rel 7. build 68 - which is the latest on > the web site. > > One other issue which someone might want to comment on is the use of > restricted words. > We know that the use of the words e.g.: date year month weeknum and > other common terms which can also be functions gives a problem. > > It would be helpful if users will comment on strategies to handle > this. The current implementation is NOT to worry about this. In some > programmes there is a list of illegal terms. > > Should we : > a. Adopt a strategy, where users are warned when creating files where > field names/variables are > given the same names as a restricted word - a warning. > > b. Maintain current where users will find out since either an error or > occur or nothing happens when > they create confusion in this way - a "non-friendly" way towards > users. > > c. A strategy where field names cannot have the same names as > functions. - a restrictive strategy. > > In future similar questions as this I will attempt to add "Design > decision" .... in the subject line, such that users on the list not > wishing to get this type of mail can add to a filter. > > To check which version a particular build of EpiData Analysis has > issue the command: > . version > Current version: 1.1 Release 7 (Build 68) If you are on internet the > programme will also look up on the website the latest public release, > e.g.: > Latest public release 1.1 Release 1 (Build 62) Report problems and > suggestions to <the EpiData list> Development versions are located on > the <EpiData testing page> > > Where the text in < ......> are hyperlinks, such that if you click on > them your standard browser will open on those pages. > > regards > Jens Lauritsen > > _______________________________________________ > EpiData-list mailing list > EpiData-list(a)lists.umanitoba.ca > http://lists.umanitoba.ca/mailman/listinfo/epidata-list

1 0

Design decision for epidata analysis - missing and restricted words
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 19 Mar '06

19 Mar '06

This mail is technical in nature, if you are not interested in technical aspects, just delete the mail. The issue of how to read ,., in a comma separated file is now solved and can be tested in v 1.1, rel 7. build 68 - which is the latest on the web site. One other issue which someone might want to comment on is the use of restricted words. We know that the use of the words e.g.: date year month weeknum and other common terms which can also be functions gives a problem. It would be helpful if users will comment on strategies to handle this. The current implementation is NOT to worry about this. In some programmes there is a list of illegal terms. Should we : a. Adopt a strategy, where users are warned when creating files where field names/variables are given the same names as a restricted word - a warning. b. Maintain current where users will find out since either an error or occur or nothing happens when they create confusion in this way - a "non-friendly" way towards users. c. A strategy where field names cannot have the same names as functions. - a restrictive strategy. In future similar questions as this I will attempt to add "Design decision" .... in the subject line, such that users on the list not wishing to get this type of mail can add to a filter. To check which version a particular build of EpiData Analysis has issue the command: . version Current version: 1.1 Release 7 (Build 68) If you are on internet the programme will also look up on the website the latest public release, e.g.: Latest public release 1.1 Release 1 (Build 62) Report problems and suggestions to <the EpiData list> Development versions are located on the <EpiData testing page> Where the text in < ......> are hyperlinks, such that if you click on them your standard browser will open on those pages. regards Jens Lauritsen

1 1

Calculating elapsed time for a procedure crossing midnight ?
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 18 Mar '06

18 Mar '06

If the procedure will never be less than a few hours, this is just a matter of checking whether end time is less than start time - code added below. For a procedure or event that can take more than 24 hours, you have to have a separate field for end date. ---Jamie Dale wrote: > I'm a novice epidata user and am calculating elapsed time for a > procedure (never more than a few hours) which can cross midnight. > This is implicit if the ending time is less than the starttime. Can > anyone suggest how modify the code below to add a day when the endtime > is after midnight? Thanks! --Dale > > BEFORE FILE > DEFINE varStartTime ########.##### > DEFINE varEndTIME ########.##### > END > > STARTTIM > RANGE 0 23.59 > END > > ENDTIME > RANGE 0 23.59 > AFTER ENTRY > varStartTime=STARTDAT+TIME2NUM(STARTTIM) > varEndTime=STARTDAT+TIME2NUM(ENDTIME) if endtime < starttim then varendtime = varendtime + 1 // add one day to end time endif HOURSMIN=NUM2TIME(varEndTime-varStartTime) > END > > > HOURSMIN > NOENTER > END

1 0