Search

Assessing OpenStreetMap (OSM) data quality against authoritative data sources may not always be viable. This is primarily because of the multi-dimensional nature and heterogeneity of the maps, yet the activity is pivotal for targeted data cleansing and quality enhancement undertakings in these data sets. A salient facet of OSM, allowing contributors to flag potential problems encountered during the mapping process, is the FIXME tag. In this article, we examine and discuss OSM data quality through the vast expanse of issues (knowledge) documented via FIXME. We present a classification and analysis of these quality issues, exposed as topic models and grounded in the ISO-19157 standard, across USA and Australia. Regional distributions of these topics are further qualitatively analyzed to ascertain the variation of key issues in OSM. We also present a comparison of the intrinsic issue classification against those identified in an issue corpus of an authoritative map data source. Due to the considerable heterogeneity in user mapping and reporting, OSM issue detection and classification remains problematic. This research presents a flexible and intrinsic data-mining approach, linking established ISO data quality standards to OSM issue categorization. Our work, thus informs the development of automated error correction methods for VGI datasets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research-on-research study describes efforts to develop non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) by analyzing demographical and time-course collaborations between international institutions using protocols registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) or published in scientific journals. We have published an a priori protocol to develop this study. Protocols published in scientific journals were searched using the MEDLINE and Embase databases; the query terms “Systematic review” [Title] AND “protocol” [Title] were searched from February 2011 to December 2017. Protocols registered at PROSPERO during the same period were obtained by web scraping all non-Cochrane records with a Python script. After excluding protocols that had a fulfillment or duplication rate of less than 90%, they were classified as published “only in PROSPERO”, “only in journals”, or in “journals and PROSPERO”. Results of data and metadata extraction using text mining processes were curated by two reviewers. These Datasets and R scripts are freely available to facilitate reproducibility. We obtained 20,814 protocols of non-Cochrane SRs. While “unique protocols” by reviewers’ institutions from 60 countries were the most frequent, a median of 6 (2-150) institutions from 130 different countries were involved in the preparation of “collaborative protocols”. The highest Ranked countries involved in overall protocol production were the UK, the U.S., Australia, Brazil, China, Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, and Italy. Most protocols were registered only in PROSPERO. However, the number of protocols published in scientific journals (924) or in both PROSPERO and journals (807) has increased over the last three years. Syst Rev and BMJ Open published more than half of the total protocols. While the more productive countries were involved in “unique” and “collaborative protocols”, less productive countries only participated in “collaborative protocols” that were mainly published in PROSPERO. Our results suggest that, although most countries were involved in solitary production of protocols for non-Cochrane SRs during the study period, it would be useful to develop new strategies to promote international collaborations, especially with less productive countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Bali, Indonesia, presents significant infectious and non‐infectious health risks for Australian travellers. Understanding this spectrum of illnesses has the potential to assist clinicians in evaluating unwell returning travellers and guide provision of pre‐travel advice. Aim: To describe the spectrum of illnesses seen in returned travellers from Bali. Methods: Using a novel text mining approach, we performed a retrospective, observational study of all adult emergency department presentations to a metropolitan health service in Melbourne, from 2011 to 2015. Outcome measures included demographic, clinical and laboratory features of travel‐related illnesses. Results: A total of 464 patients met inclusion criteria. Gastroenteritis (119/464, 26%), systemic febrile illness (88/464, 19%) and respiratory tract infection (51/464, 11%) were the most common diagnoses. Dengue was the most common laboratory‐confirmed diagnosis (25/464, 5%). No cases of malaria were identified. Common non‐infectious presentations included traumatic injury (47/464, 10%) and animal bites requiring rabies post‐exposure prophylaxis (29/464, 6%). A total of 110 patients (24%) was admitted to the hospital; those presenting with systemic febrile illness were more likely to be admitted compared to those presenting with other illnesses (odds ratio 3.42, 95% confidence interval 2.02–5.75, P < 0.001). Conclusion: This is the first study to use a text mining approach to identify and describe emergency department presentations related to diseases acquired in Bali by Australian travellers. Although infections are important causes of illness, trauma and animal bites account for a significant number of hospital presentations. Our findings contribute to the knowledge on the health risks for travellers to Bali, and will assist clinicians in relevant pre‐ and post‐travel evaluations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the systematic archiving of qualitative data emerging as a distinct possibility in Australia, both the practices of qualitative research and how subsequent outputs are 'used' are coming under increased scrutiny and reflection. Drawing on a series of focus groups with qualitative researchers, this article critically explores the meanings ascribed to qualitative research practice and the perceived challenges posed by contemporary innovations in data management, access, and analysis through electronic archiving. The accounts presented provide much needed insight into key debates (and divergences) within the qualitative community regarding the values and meanings of qualitative practice, but also how contemporary innovations may come to challenge these core values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]