- EpiData-list - University of Manitoba Mailing Lists

EpiData for Mac
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 15 Mar '11

15 Mar '11

Dear EpiData colleagues, I have just started using Epidata and I own a mac. There seem to be no detailed help guides to help follow and use the Mac version. Is it that its still under development? Is there anyone with access to this document Kind Regards Aloysius Ssemaganda UVRI/IAVI HIV Vaccine Program Uganda Virus Research Institute P.O.Box 49 Entebbe,Uganda. Tel: +256 414 322 377/8,+256 414 321 094 Cell: +256 782 334 633 Fax: + 256 414 321 124 Email: assemaganda(a)iavi.or.ug or assemaganda(a)gmail.com

1 1

Conditional formula
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 12 Mar '11

12 Mar '11

Hello Epidata users, I am having problem to code conditional formula in epidata as described below, can anyone suggest how to code to the following condition, If a= 1 and b = 1 then exposure= K If a= 1 and b = 0 then exposure= K If a= 1 and b = 1 and c= 1 then exposure= K If a= 1 and b = 1 and c= 1 and d=0 then exposure= K If a= 1 and b = 1 and c= 1 and d=1 then exposure= K else exposure= K1 Thanks -- *Dr. Bijay Adhikari*, PhD, MPH, DVM* Prov. Communicable Disease Epidemiologist Population Health Branch Saskatchewan Ministry of Health Regina, SK Canada

1 1

Thankyou
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 25 Feb '11

25 Feb '11

Hi Everyone, I would like to thank you for all your help answering my query with Epidata. All your help is much appreciated. Kind Regards, Niamh

1 0

Query about Epidata and Exporting to SPSS
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 24 Feb '11

24 Feb '11

Hi all, I have a quick question. I used Epidata to put all my data from a survey I conducted. I did not export all my inputted data in SPSS but I am using SPSS for analysis. I was wondering is it possible to export all of my data in Epidata into SPSS. Or is it better to manually put it into SPSS. Also, I am new to research and statistics and was advised to use Epidata first and then analyse using SPSS. I was wondering why people use Epidata first and then export to SPSS. I mean, what are the advantages of doing this? Is it better to do this first and then export to SPSS? Any advise would be greatly appreciated, Kind Regards, Niamh

1 4

Check commands and field naming
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 18 Feb '11

18 Feb '11

Well done to Jens and Torsten on the progress of the manager and entry client. I have a few questions. I see that there is a confirm field check in the manager, but appears to be applied to the field in question only. So if one wishes to make every field a confirm field, then such an edit would need to be made for every field. I wondered if there were plans to enable the user to set such a thing for the whole database by having it as a global setting. Similarly for a missing value (9999 might always be a missing value code). Another question is whether there any plans to enable chk files created in EpiData Entry to be imported into the manager and/or rec files containing such checks to be brought into the manager with the checks preserved (at present they are ignored). A final question concerns the pasting of a qes file into the manager which uses EpiData Entry automatic field naming (i.e. the curly brackets to define filed names) and whether this will be supported in the manager. At present, the brackets are ignored by the program. Regards, Neville ----------------------------------------- ************************************************************************** The information contained in the EMail and any attachments is confidential and intended solely and for the attention and use of the named addressee(s). It may not be disclosed to any other person without the express authority of the HPA, or the intended recipient, or both. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not disclose, copy, distribute or retain this message or any part of it. This footnote also confirms that this EMail has been swept for computer viruses, but please re-sweep any attachments before opening or saving. HTTP://www.HPA.org.uk **************************************************************************

1 1

Updated entry client fixing a backup problem uploaded
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 16 Feb '11

16 Feb '11

Unfortunately the backup at closure of a project was not working in the EntryClient uploaded last friday. This has been fixed in the version which has just been uploaded. An article on data quality describing the principles we are working under is available now as a free pdf from: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/download?pub=infobike%3a%2f%2fiuatld%2… the reference is: Quality assurance of data: ensuring that numbers reflect operational definitions and contain real measurements Authors: Rieder, H.L.1; Lauritsen, J.M.2 Source: The International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, Volume 15, Number 3, March 2011 , pp. 296-304(9) regards to all Jens Lauritsen EpiData Association regards to all Jens Lauritsen EpiData Association

1 0

Asymmetric limbs of Confidence Interval - clarification
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 16 Feb '11

16 Feb '11

Please see below the table generated in Epidata analysis and note the confidence interval in the first row HIV results Total 1539 108 7.0 (5.8-8.4) This is the proportion of HIV infected among a group of TB suspects which is 7% with 95% CI being 5.8 - 8.4. It can be deduced that the upper limb of confidence interval(which is 1.96 times Standard error) is 8.4 minus 7 = 1.4 Similarly, it can be deduced that the lower limb of confidence interval(which is 1.96 times Standard error) is 7 minus 5.8 = 1.2 *Query - why are the two limbs of the confidence interval different?* the same observation can be noted in all CIs noted above in the table. The asymmetry of limbs of CI are expected in case of non-linear measures like Odds Ratio, Relative risk, Hazard Ratio etc, but not in case of simple proportions. I am given to understand (from Dr Hans Reider, from whom I learnt Epidata) that EpiData Analysis is purported to follow the recommendations by the BMJ in the calculation of most confidence intervals and this would indeed suggest that the CI around a proportion should be symmetric on a linear scale. Would be grateful if you could clarify. Regards, Ajay -- ****************** Dr. M. V. Ajay Kumar WHO National Consultant - RNTCP Central TB Division, MOHFW 523'C' Wing, Nirman Bhavan, Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi - 110108 Mail - No. 353-C, J&K Pocket, Dilshad Garden, Delhi - 110095 Phone : +91-9311384574 Email : Kumaramv(a)rntcp.org;

1 2

Technical details of test release
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 15 Feb '11

15 Feb '11

Dear All Today we have released new test versions of EpiData EntryClient and EpiData Manager. This email is mainly technical and will give broad view of changes and additions to the two programs. Important aspect: flow of entry. On a normal entry of fields, the flow is defined as moving from field to field in a left-to-right, then down, manner – but at the same time following sections. Once inside a section this section will be completed before exiting. This should simulate a normal work flow working with schemes/registration forms. The flow of entry is followed if you leave the field in a "standard" way. Standard ways are: "The entire length of the field is filled" or by using one of the following keys: ”Arrow down”, ”Enter” or ”Tab”. These keys are "flow of entry keys" and should be used during data entry. To break the flow of entry (not recommended) : Either use "Arrow Up" key, the mouse or enter a legal value and then avoid saving the record. We note "not recommended" since a field could have some attributes set that defines another flow of entry, e.g. a jump. The programming is handled in three "parts": A common core, EntryClient and Manager. Any change to the Core module will affect the two other parts: *Changes for Core*: * Define jumpsfor a field. Changes the flow of entry (see above) and rules for resetting field data. (leave as is, blank, add defined missing) * Define Entry Mode for a field. The possible (mutually exclusive) attributes are: Default Entry, Must Enter or No Enter. * Define Confirm Entry. This will force a user to confirm the entry using a key (see below). * Define Show Value Label. Show category text for a given entered value next to the field (right side) (formerly known as comment legal show). * Various bug fixes, including incorrect import of dates from Stata files and definitions of "missing" status of a Value Label. Changes for both programs: * Added a check such that programs can only be started once (single instance). * The programs now check that the active project file has not been modified between saves. * Added short-cuts to the 9 most recent files: Ctrl + Shift + <number> * Shortcuts for Mac OS X have been changed to follow the native style of the OS. * Adapted setup and properties for the new options Changes for Manager: * Hides Work Process Toolbar when a project is active. * Assign jumpsto field. One or more jumps may be assigned to a field. * Added the ability to "copy & paste" field/heading/sections on the designer. - A section can be copied to the main section. - Copying a section will also copy fields/headings within that section. - Fields/Headings can be copied to/from sections (including main section). - Field attributes can be copied from one field to another of same type. * "Tab" key should now work as "change cell" key on the Value Label Editor. * Value Label Editor modified. * Flyspray bugfixes: 71, 72, 73 Changes for Entry: * AutoIncrement (Formerly IDNUM) fields can start at a defined value * User specified Colour for errors * Enhanced control of focus for active field. * Fixed several bugs - including loading of corrupt/invalid files Kind regards, Torsten Bonde Christiansen Jens Lauritsen EpiData Association.

1 1

re: Double Entry failed when AutoSearch is enabled, Does this bug fixed?
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 13 Feb '11

13 Feb '11

> On 2011-02-13 08:55,epidata-list at lists.umanitoba.ca <http://lists.umanitoba.ca/mailman/listinfo/epidata-list> wrote: > >/ Hi, I have struggled with a problem that: > />/ When I use the double entry real time verification, I can only do the > />/ verification on the first record, When I entering a second record, the > />/ verification is Disabled. > /Obviously this was not a pleasant experience for you. But the struggling > tells that you tried various ways - which is always a good thing. > Unfortunately there are not many things in project work and research > which works in a simple way - at least not the first time one tries. Thanks for your reply and a warn encouragement. > Only for files with a unique identifier that you YOURSELF enter during > the entry - and provided this field have the "Key unique" setup will the > verify during entry work. It is obvious that if there is no unique key - > then the software will have no way of knowing which record from the > first entry to compare with. Your logic of using "autosearch" is fine in > general, but is too complex in the double entry situation. Here are my considerations (sorry if I not fully understand your statement as my English is not quite good:-) ) Generally, there are two kind of "double check": 1, we entered two rec files separately and independently, then use the Menu->document->Validate duplicate files, this checking is "off-line mode". 2, I entered one rec file, and cread a _dbl.rec file by Menu->Tools->Prepare double entry verification. Then just opened the _dbl.rec file, and entering records, so this is "double entry verification in real time mode". So, when I want to do "double entry in real time", I must: 1, use Key unique feature on some/one field 2, do not use "autosearch" right? > As such I do not know of any bugs in relation to double entry and > verification, but some requirements/limitations (possibly not well > documented) are needed: > > A. If you use<idnum> fields in your system then: > make a copy (copy structure in tools menu) of your system and > INDEPENDENTLY enter data the second time. Following the second entry do > the validation in the documentation menu. > B. If you use a combined key for your "unique identifier": > e.g. mykey = idnum+var1+var2 > or mykey = string(idnum) + string(var1) + string(var2) > then do as in point A > C. If you are using a related file system > then do as in point A > D. based on your experience we can add : If using autosearch > then do as in point A The method A,B,C,D you give is all about the way in "off-line mode", right? I'd like to say that: I prefer "double entry in real time mode", as I think it is much convenient to do the verification while entering. Zhang Yuanhui China

1 0

Double Entry failed when AutoSearch is enabled, Does this bug fixed?
by epidata-list＠lists.umanitoba.ca 13 Feb '11

13 Feb '11

Hi, I have struggled with a problem that: When I use the double entry real time verification, I can only do the verification on the first record, When I entering a second record, the verification is Disabled. I have struggled this problems for nearly two days by trying to narrow the problem, then finally I found that if I remove the "autosearch" function on my ID field (which is the matching key on the double entry verification), then everything works fine. Finally, I search by keywords "autosearch double entry" on this maillist, and found there is an announcement by the official author in this post: (it was in year 2006) http://lists.umanitoba.ca/pipermail/epidata-list/2006q2/000430.html They said: ------------------------- Double Entry and Autosearch: Danger!....... ------------------------- Now, I'm using the latest official release version, which is v3.1 (28jan2008). I also check the mantis system, I don't find anything related to this bug. http://www.epidata.dk/php/mantis/view_all_bug_page.php So, Still, my question is: Does this bug fixed? It seems this bug still exists in the v3.1 (28jan2008). Thanks Zhang Yuanhui China

1 1