Access to data: comparing AccessMed with Query by Review.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the performance of tools for authoring patient database queries.


METHODS
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.


METHODS
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.


CONCLUSIONS
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.
Hripcsak
G
G
Department of Medical Informatics, Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. hripcsak@columbia.edu
Allen
B
B
Cimino
J J
JJ
Lee
R
R
D001185:Artificial Intelligence; D002984:Clinical Laboratory Information Systems; D006751:Hospital Information Systems; D016247:Information Storage and Retrieval; D016347:Medical Records Systems, Computerized; D012660:Semantics; D014584:User-Computer Interface; D018875:Vocabulary, Controlled