- EpiData-list - University of Manitoba Mailing Lists

Using Epidata for a central server
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 26 Oct '05

26 Oct '05

Hello 1.About having a central server, please refer to the website and read the limitation of Epidata. 2.Well you can use the qes for data management or also use the option of preparing one data screen(rec file)and use the option of copy structure which is located at the tools menu.The advantage is that; 1. It is fast 2. There is no need to prepare another check. With these option, data entry staff can entry data for you and you have to merge them to have a collective data either at epidata or using spss. Using text fields.It is possible to enter open-ended questions and narrative with Epidata but it limitatiton is that it takes up to 80 characters whilst that of spss DE takes about 256 characters SEDZRO KOJO MENSAH P.O.Box AS 387 Ashaiman -Tema Ghana House : +233-22-300789 MOBILE : +233-244-458788 Homepage http://rastafarionline.com/rasbesa Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org) ---------- Original Message ----------- From: epidata-list-request(a)lists.umanitoba.ca To: epidata-list(a)lists.umanitoba.ca Sent: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:01:20 -0500 (CDT) Subject: EpiData-list Digest, Vol 24, Issue 13 > 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..." ------- End of Original Message -------

1 1

External reference for data entry: length limitation
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 25 Oct '05

25 Oct '05

Dear friends. Using COMMENT LEGAL function in order to select strings and get their respective codes from a separate REC file, I wanted to get CID10 codes and their respective Descriptions during data entry. In my parent CHK file you can see: DISEASE COMMENT LEGAL CID10.REC SHOW TYPE COMMENT CIDCODE END CIDCODE NOENTER END In my reference CHK file you'd read: DISEASE KEY 1 END CID10 KEY UNIQUE 2 END It's working fine, except that, in the pop-up window of reference the description of DISEASE is shown length limited to 30 characters, despite of my reference REC file showing 70. Any clue? Thanks in advance. MARCO MOURA ================================== Dr. MARCO Antonio MOURA Reis, MD, PhD Discipline of Medical Informatics Department of Medicine University of Region of Joinville - UNIVILLE Joinville (SC) - BRAZIL E-mail: mmoura(a)infomedica.com.br ==================================

1 0

Re: Multiple locations input
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 25 Oct '05

25 Oct '05

Well, Megan. As I know, simultaneous entries are not possible. I have been using EpiData in clinical research and constantly dealing with multiple users input. Right now I am creating a set of files to be used for a multicenter study about Neonatal Care Units (up to 50). What I do is to distribute sets of REC/CHK files (named specifically after each center) and recover the filled REC files through the use of a Web based free, but access-limited Group (like Yahoo Groups), what turns to be a additional backup system for my precious files. Having different files make it possible to first check the adequacy of each file before combining them. Combine files is quite fast and easy. Hope it helps. MARCO MOURA ================================== Dr. MARCO Antonio MOURA Reis, MD, PhD Discipline of Medical Informatics Department of Medicine University of Region of Joinville - UNIVILLE Joinville (SC) - BRAZIL E-mail: mmoura(a)infomedica.com.br ==================================

1 0

Multiple users - question by Megan Reif
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 25 Oct '05

25 Oct '05

Dear Megan: I can tell you a bit about our experience with multiple users in different countries we have had. We use one original set: original.qes original.rec original.chk Once this is definitively agreed upon, we use Copy structure (including the check file) to get: a.rec a.chk b.rec b.chk .. as many as we need and give one pair to each user (actually in duplicate for double entry). They enter the data at their leisure and then email the validated *.rec files. Because these files are so small, this can be done from even the slowest email connection (which matters to us as we work in some of the poorest countries). In EpiData Analysis, we simply do: close erase "abcd.rec" read "a.rec" append "b.rec" append "c.rec" append "d.rec" savedata "abcd.rec" close read "abcd.rec" People in the periphery simply continue to enter data into a.rec or b.rec and send so and so often the updated file, and the coordinator runs the append.pgm again. We did this with 30 locations in Zimbabwe collaborating with 31 locations in Mongolia, with a similar set-up for Moldowa collaborating with Uganda, and we never had a need for a central server. Email did just fine. A file with 58,000 records and and 9 fields took just 2 MB. I hope this helps a bit with that part of your question. Regards, Hans Rieder

1 0

Remote Entry, Multiple Users, Long Text Fields
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 24 Oct '05

24 Oct '05

Hello, I am a political scientists but used to work with public health people at The Carter Center. I am comparing EpiData, SPSS Data Entry Builder, and File Maker Pro as options for entering media incident reports of election violence. I am interested in "epidemiology of political violence" and eventually plan to map incidents. I am leaning toward Epi because it is freeware and many other great qualities, but a couple of questions remain: (1) I would like to have people entering data at the same time from multiple locations. Is it possible to have a remote and immediate data deposit on a central server via the web using EpiData? If not, how have people handled data management when field staff enter data? Do they just use the same .qes and then send the .rec files periodically, which are appended. Are there any problems with this method? I was thinking of setting up a web site where people could upload their files, then I would combine them. (2) I am a bit confused about text fields. Is it possible to enter open-ended questions and narratives (paragraph length)? This is what is attractive to me about SPSS DEB. They have remote entry as well as long text fields. If anyone has considered these issues I would welcome assistance. Best wishes, Megan Reif Megan E. Reif Department of Political Science University of Michigan 5700 Haven Hall 505 S. State Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1045 Mobile: 734.730.6024 Home: 734.763.6916 Fax: 734.764.3522 reifm(a)umich.edu -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/146 - Release Date: 10/21/2005

1 0

How to: relate files - how can I get only one record in sub files for each main record ?
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 22 Oct '05

22 Oct '05

Ziad asked: How to go for new record if you have two parts in EpiData? > I have database made of two parts. When we finish data entry in "part 2", > instead of moving to new record file, and we expect to see part 1, we get > new record file in part 2. > I assume the situation is this: a. enter data into file A b. at latest field in file A perform a relate to file B based on unique ID c. continue with more data in B d. at last field in file B you wish to continue with next record in file A. IF you specify in file A last field: after entry relate id fileB end Then after entering last field in file B you will have a new record in file B, but if you instead: after entry relate id fileB 1 end then only one record will be entered in file B and you will return to file A Example: qes files: file a: id <IDNUM> v1 first field # v2 date <dd/mm/yyyy> v3 relate # file b: id ##### v1 first field # v2 date <dd/mm/yyyy> v3 relate # Chk files: file a: id KEY UNIQUE 1 END v3 AFTER ENTRY RELATE id fileb 1 END END file b: id KEY UNIQUE 1 END Kind regards Jens Lauritsen EpiData Association

1 0

Atttach data file to the request
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 21 Oct '05

21 Oct '05

Hello All! Describing your problem, mighty be easy to you but to the one who is suppose to fix it up difficult.It will be appropriate if you add the data to the problem description for one to fix it up and send it you. I suggest you include the data screen for any of us to figured out the solution. Regards SEDZRO KOJO MENSAH P.O.Box AS 387 Ashaiman -Tema Ghana House : +233-22-300789 MOBILE : +233-244-458788 Homepage http://rastafarionline.com/rasbesa Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org) ---------- Original Message ----------- From: epidata-list-request(a)lists.umanitoba.ca To: epidata-list(a)lists.umanitoba.ca Sent: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:01:05 -0500 (CDT) Subject: EpiData-list Digest, Vol 24, Issue 11 > 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..." ------- End of Original Message -------

1 0

How to go for new record if you have two parts in EpiData?
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 21 Oct '05

21 Oct '05

Hello! I have database made of two parts. When we finish data entry in "part 2", instead of moving to new record file, and we expect to see part 1, we get new record file in part 2. Example: when we enter questionnaire number 1-part 1. Then part 2 opens for the same questionnaire 1. At the end of part 2, instead of moving to questionnaire 2 to start doing data entry, it gives us new record file under part 2 for questionnaire 1. Any advice(s)? Thank you in advance! Best regards! /Ziad -- Centre for Studies of Complementary Medicine Karolinska Institutet Stockholm

1 0

Re: Double Entry Error and @ when exporting to SPSS
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 14 Oct '05

14 Oct '05

I have a problem with results of calculation during double entry. During > double entry, all calculations give same results as first entry except only > for few subjects. Mystery sometimes happen - I am not sure what the problem is here. But we are just now working on different aspects of double entry verification. With the next build of EpiData Entry these errors should be fixed. For the finding of errors it would be very good if users could supply us with the rec+chk files giving problems. If someone as indicated on the list recently have examples creating problems please provide them for us for testing. The known issues to settle are: 1. Sometimes the double entry verification does not move on to the next record (problem with range definition in last field) 2. The calculation error indicated today. Send the files as zipped files (e.g. with few records, say 2-5) to info @ epidata.dk with a clear subject indicating that this is not spam, e.g EpiData test case for finding double entry problem. 2. Exporting to SPSS from old to new version of EpiData. The EpiData file format has not changed apart from the addition of encrypted fields and <yyyy/mm/dd> fields What most likely cause your problems is that the setting of "variable name" as first word or automatic was different on the two computers. Also for export to SPSS you do not need the QES file, but the chk file (definition of value labels and missing data) + the rec file (definition of fields, variable labels and all of the data). regards Jens Lauritsen EpiData Association

1 0

problems with calculations during double entry
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 14 Oct '05

14 Oct '05

Hi, I have a problem with results of calculation during double entry. During double entry, all calculations give same results as first entry except only for few subjects. I checked my formulae with other software and they look OK. This bug is not systematic thats why I have difficulties finding errors. I dont understand why this bug appears only for few subjects. They have not the same characteristics. Who can tell me what king of error it could be, because I dont know anymore what to looking for? Below, calculations : pspef AFTER ENTRY IF (sex = 1) and (height < 162.6) THEN pspdpef=(height * 0.073) - 5.98 ENDIF IF (sex = 1) and (height > 162.5) THEN pspdpef=(height * 0.125) - 13.14 ENDIF IF (sex = 0) and (height < 152.6) THEN pspdpef=(height * 0.079) - 6.79 ENDIF IF (sex = 0) and (height > 152.5) THEN pspdpef=(height * 0.064) - 3.94 ENDIF IF (sex = 1) THEN pssdcpef=(pspef - pspdpef) / (pspdpef * 0.18) ENDIF IF (sex = 0) THEN pssdcpef=(pspef - pspdpef) / (pspdpef * 0.2) ENDIF psppef=(pspef/pspdpef)*100 END END pspdpef NOENTER END pssdcpef NOENTER END psppef NOENTER END Example : sex = 1 , height = 132.8, pspef = 4.90 First entry (good results) pspdpef = 3.71 pssdcpef = 1.78 psppef = 132.1 Double entry pspdpef = 3.71 pssdcpef = -1.15 psppef = 79.2 Thank you in advance for your help. Marie-Pierre Strippoli Marie-Pierre Institut of social and preventive medicine Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistic Paediatric Epidemiology Finkenhubelweg 11 3012 Bern Tel: +41 (0)31 631 35 07 Fax: +41 (0)31 631 35 20 http://www.ispm.unibe.ch

1 0