help button home button JAMIA Hate scrolling?
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hripcsak, G.
Right arrow Articles by Lee, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hripcsak, G.
Right arrow Articles by Lee, R.

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, Vol 3, 288-299, Copyright © 1996 by American Medical Informatics Association

ARTICLES

Access to data: comparing AccessMed with Query by Review

G Hripcsak, B Allen, JJ Cimino and R Lee
Department of Medical Informatics, Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. hripcsak@columbia.edu

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; intersubject 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.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc.Home page
Q. T. Zeng, J. Crowell, R. M. Plovnick, E. Kim, L. Ngo, and E. Dibble
Assisting Consumer Health Information Retrieval with Query Recommendations
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., January 1, 2006; 13(1): 80 - 90.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc.Home page
H. Gu, M. Halper, J. Geller, and Y. Perl
Benefits of an Object-oriented Database Representation for Controlled Medical Terminologies
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., July 1, 1999; 6(4): 283 - 303.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1996 by the American Medical Informatics Association.