Electronic Support for Retrospective Analysis in the Field of Radiation Oncology: Proof of Principle Using an Example of Fractionated Stereotactic Radiotherapy of 251 Meningioma Patients
Sandra Rutzner, Rainer Fietkau, Thomas Ganslandt, Hans-Ulrich Prokosch, Dorota Lubgan
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to verify the possible benefit of a clinical data warehouse (DWH) for retrospective analysis in the field of radiation oncology.
We manually and electronically (using DWH) evaluated demographic, radiotherapy, and outcome data from 251 meningioma patients, who were irradiated from January 2002 to January 2015 at the Department of Radiation Oncology of the Erlangen University Hospital. Furthermore, we linked the Oncology Information System (OIS) MOSAIQ(®) to the DWH in order to gain access to irradiation data. We compared the manual and electronic data retrieval method in terms of congruence of data, corresponding time, and personal requirements (physician, physicist, scientific associate).
The electronically supported data retrieval (DWH) showed an average of 93.9% correct data and significantly (p = 0.009) better result compared to manual data retrieval (91.2%). Utilizing a DWH enables the user to replace large amounts of manual activities (668 h), offers the ability to significantly reduce data collection time and labor demand (35 h), while simultaneously improving data quality. In our case, work time for manually data retrieval was 637 h for the scientific assistant, 26 h for the medical physicist, and 5 h for the physician (total 668 h).
Our study shows that a DWH is particularly useful for retrospective analysis in the radiation oncology field. Routine clinical data for a large patient group can be provided ready for analysis to the scientist and data collection time can be significantly reduced. Furthermore, linking multiple data sources in a DWH offers the ability to improve data quality for retrospective analysis, and future research can be simplified.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
1
4%
Other
2
8%
Unknown
13
54%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 February 2017.
All research outputs
#20,660,571
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#11,318
of 22,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#322,061
of 424,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#37
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,428 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 424,566 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
