CDR Tickets

BZDATETIME::2009-10-29 17:17:12
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::1

Re-assigned this to Volker instead and added Bob on the cc list.

BZDATETIME::2009-11-11 18:00:00
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::2

Here are the reports that could be affected:

Adhoc reports
1. Transferred Protocols
The report provides us with the list of trials that have the transferInfo element. We also get a quick count of transferred trials using this report.

2. Transferred Trials not received from NLM
This report gives us the list of trials that have the transferInfo block but no new CTGov documents were imported.

CDR Admin Reports
1. Protocol Transfer of Ownership Response
CIAT/OCCM Staff > Reports > Protocols > Protocol Transfer of Ownership Responses
This is a comprehensive spreadsheet of trials transferred and not transferred.

I did not add the - CTGov Transfer Report by Organization and Status because it has not gone into production yet.

I think there might be more reports affected but these are the ones I know.

I am also adding Kim to this issue just in case I missed any reports.

BZDATETIME::2009-12-03 15:27:55
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::3

Changed title to indicate that the reports need to be identified and fixed.

BZDATETIME::2009-12-07 12:13:16
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::4

I have identified more ad hoc queries that may have been affected:
1. Special Category Count
2. Protocols with NIHGrantContract type
3. Protocols w/Special Category
4. Protocols for a Grant Number
5. Count of NCI Sponsored Trials with Grant Numbers
6. Count of trials with NCI Grant Information
7. Inactive Intramural trials with Special Category
8. NIH Closed Trials with No Special Category
9. NIH Trials with No Special Category

Bob:
The ONCORE email has started reporting trials that have been transferred as "not matched by any CDR document.

Examples:
Trial ID CDR0000609887 not matched by any CDR document
Trial ID CDR0000630334 not matched by any CDR document

I am not sure if this will affect the RSS email as well.
How should I handle this? I think you fixed a 'similar' problem in OCECDR-3003 which stopped the reporting of transferred trials. Please let me know if you want me to create a new issue for this one.

BZDATETIME::2009-12-07 13:17:15
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::5

(In reply to comment #4)
> 1. Special Category Count

The Special Category Count is empty on MAHLER as well as on BACH.
There is nothing I can do with this one.

BZDATETIME::2009-12-07 13:45:15
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::6

(In reply to comment #4)

> The ONCORE email has started reporting trials that have been transferred as
> "not matched by any CDR document.
>
> Examples:
> Trial ID CDR0000609887 not matched by any CDR document
> Trial ID CDR0000630334 not matched by any CDR document
>
> I am not sure if this will affect the RSS email as well.
> How should I handle this? I think you fixed a 'similar' problem in OCECDR-3003
> which stopped the reporting of transferred trials. Please let me know if you
> want me to create a new issue for this one.

I'm not sure I see this as a "similar problem": if I understand what is going on here, we've got a trial that used to belong to us, and while it belonged to us we wanted information fed to us about changes to the trial status and participation in the trial by its sites; now we are no longer responsible for reporting on the trial, but the organization (RSS, Oncore, etc.) is under the mistaken impression that it's still appropriate for them to continue to feed us information about changes to the trial. That seems like a problem which needs to be solved by informing the source for the trial site/status information feed that we are no longer responsible for this trial, and that they should no longer include information about the trial in their service feed to us. It doesn't seem like a problem we should "solve" by pretending the problem doesn't exist and just suppressing reporting of the problem, does it?

BZDATETIME::2009-12-07 14:01:35
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::7

(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #4)
>
> > The ONCORE email has started reporting trials that have been transferred as
> > "not matched by any CDR document.
> >
> > Examples:
> > Trial ID CDR0000609887 not matched by any CDR document
> > Trial ID CDR0000630334 not matched by any CDR document
> >
> > I am not sure if this will affect the RSS email as well.
> > How should I handle this? I think you fixed a 'similar' problem in OCECDR-3003
> > which stopped the reporting of transferred trials. Please let me know if you
> > want me to create a new issue for this one.
>
> I'm not sure I see this as a "similar problem": if I understand what is going
> on here, we've got a trial that used to belong to us, and while it belonged to
> us we wanted information fed to us about changes to the trial status and
> participation in the trial by its sites; now we are no longer responsible for
> reporting on the trial, but the organization (RSS, Oncore, etc.) is under the
> mistaken impression that it's still appropriate for them to continue to feed us
> information about changes to the trial. That seems like a problem which needs
> to be solved by informing the source for the trial site/status information feed
> that we are no longer responsible for this trial, and that they should no
> longer include information about the trial in their service feed to us. It
> doesn't seem like a problem we should "solve" by pretending the problem doesn't
> exist and just suppressing reporting of the problem, does it?

Thanks, Bob! Your description of the problem is accurate.

Kim:
It looks like when ONCORE center trials are transferred, Dominic needs to be informed about them in order to get them off the list.

BZDATETIME::2009-12-07 14:18:15
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::8

The old and new SQL query from the ad-hoc query interface
Protocols with NIHGrantContract Type

The new query has been save on BACH.

Attachment SQL_Queries.txt has been added with description: Ad-hoc Query: Protocols with NIHGrantContract Type

BZDATETIME::2009-12-07 14:21:18
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::9

(In reply to comment #7)

> It looks like when ONCORE center trials are transferred, Dominic needs to be
> informed about them in order to get them off the list.

This will be true for all of the data partners who are feeding us this type of information (RSS, COG, etc.).

BZDATETIME::2009-12-07 17:28:55
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::10

The old and new SQL query from the ad-hoc query interface
Protocols w/Special Category

The new query has been save on BACH.

Attachment SQL_Queries.txt has been added with description: Ad-hoc Query: Protocols w/Special Category

BZDATETIME::2009-12-07 17:35:44
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::11

The old and new SQL query from the ad-hoc query interface
Protocols for a Grant Number

The new query has been save on BACH.

Attachment SQL_Queries.txt has been added with description: Ad-hoc Query: Protocols for a Grant Number

BZDATETIME::2009-12-08 14:35:55
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::12

The old and new SQL query from the ad-hoc query interface
Count of NCI Sponsored Trials with Grant Numbers

The new query has been save on BACH.

Attachment SQL_Queries.txt has been added with description: Ad-hoc Query: Count of NCI Sponsored Trials with Grant Numbers

BZDATETIME::2009-12-08 14:47:37
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::13

The old and new SQL query from the ad-hoc query interface
Count of trials with NCI Grant Information

The new query has been save on BACH.

Attachment SQL_Queries.txt has been added with description: Ad-hoc Query: Count of trials with NCI Grant Information

BZDATETIME::2009-12-29 14:11:55
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::14

(In reply to comment #8)
> Created an attachment (id=1828) [details]
> Ad-hoc Query: Protocols with NIHGrantContract Type
>
> The old and new SQL query from the ad-hoc query interface
> Protocols with NIHGrantContract Type
>
> The new query has been save on BACH.

Verified on Bach.

BZDATETIME::2009-12-30 12:43:54
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::15

(In reply to comment #10)
> Created an attachment (id=1829) [details]
> Ad-hoc Query: Protocols w/Special Category
>
> The old and new SQL query from the ad-hoc query interface
> Protocols w/Special Category
>
> The new query has been save on BACH.

I expected to see these two trials when I ran the report but they are not listed among the others.
CDR0000662657
CDR0000662658

BZDATETIME::2009-12-30 13:54:15
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::16

(In reply to comment #15)
> I expected to see these two trials when I ran the report but they are not
> listed among the others.
> CDR0000662657
> CDR0000662658

That's correct. The query is looking for documents with a
ProtocolSpecialCategory = 'NCI web site featured trial'

These two trials, however, are listed with a
ProtocolSpecialCategory = 'NIH Clinical Center trial'

BZDATETIME::2009-12-30 15:14:34
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::17

(In reply to comment #16)
> (In reply to comment #15)
> > I expected to see these two trials when I ran the report but they are not
> > listed among the others.
> > CDR0000662657
> > CDR0000662658
>
> That's correct. The query is looking for documents with a
> ProtocolSpecialCategory = 'NCI web site featured trial'
>
> These two trials, however, are listed with a
> ProtocolSpecialCategory = 'NIH Clinical Center trial'

Thank you. Could you please change the title to "Protocols with NCI featured trial Special Category"

BZDATETIME::2009-12-30 15:22:48
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::18

(In reply to comment #11)
> Created an attachment (id=1830) [details]
> Ad-hoc Query: Protocols for a Grant Number
>
> The old and new SQL query from the ad-hoc query interface
> Protocols for a Grant Number
>
> The new query has been save on BACH.

Verified on Bach.

BZDATETIME::2009-12-30 15:45:53
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::19

(In reply to comment #17)
> Could you please change the title to "Protocols with NCI featured
> trial Special Category"

Done.

BZDATETIME::2010-01-05 10:01:44
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::20

(In reply to comment #19)
> (In reply to comment #17)
> > Could you please change the title to "Protocols with NCI featured
> > trial Special Category"
>
> Done.

Verified. Thanks!

BZDATETIME::2010-01-05 17:22:38
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::21

Summary Sheet
[X] 1. Special Category Count
Note: Report does not exist
[X] 2. Protocols with NIHGrantContract type
[X] 3. Protocols w/Special Category
[X] 4. Protocols for a Grant Number
[X] 5. Count of NCI Sponsored Trials with Grant Numbers
[X] 6. Count of trials with NCI Grant Information
[ ] 7. Inactive Intramural trials with Special Category
[ ] 8. NIH Closed Trials with No Special Category
[ ] 9. NIH Trials with No Special Category

BZDATETIME::2010-01-06 12:00:42
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::22

The old and new SQL query from the ad-hoc query interface
Inactive NCI Intramural trials with Special Category

Due to the type of the query I was not able to create a single SQL statement to replace the existing query. I've therefore created two queries, one for InScopeProtocols and one for CTGovProtocols (which is currently empty). The names for these two queries are
Inactive NCI Intramural CTGov trials with Special Category
Inactive NCI Intramural InScope trials with Special Category

If this is not acceptable I may have to investigate Bob's suggestion to create stored procedures or we'll have to create a report in the Reports Menu instead.

The new queries have been save on BACH.

Attachment SQL_Queries.txt has been added with description: Ad-hoc Query: Inactive NCI Intramural trials with Special Category

BZDATETIME::2010-01-06 12:04:33
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::23

Accidentally attached the wrong file with the last comment.

Attachment SQL_Queries.txt has been added with description: Ad-hoc Query: Inactive NCI Intramural trials with Special Category

BZDATETIME::2010-01-06 14:03:30
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::24

The old and new SQL query from the ad-hoc query interface
NIH Closed Trials with No Special Category

The new query has been saved on BACH.

Attachment SQL_Queries.txt has been added with description: Ad-hoc Query: NIH Closed Trials with No Special Category

BZDATETIME::2010-01-06 15:32:28
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::25

The old and new SQL query from the ad-hoc query interface
NIH Trials with No Special Category

I am not certain if this query will do what's expected. The original query excluded protocols linking to either to the closed organizations CDR32457 (Warren Grant Magnuson Clinical Center) or CDR34517 (NIH - Warren Grant Magnuson Clinical Center). In the CTGov data, however, these organizations are not listed with a site status. For now I've decided not to look for the site status for CTGovProtocols.

The new query has been saved on BACH.

Attachment SQL_Queries.txt has been added with description: Ad-hoc Query: NIH Trials with No Special Category

BZDATETIME::2010-01-06 15:33:38
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::26

Summary Sheet
[X] 1. Special Category Count
Note: Report does not exist
[X] 2. Protocols with NIHGrantContract type
[X] 3. Protocols w/Special Category
[X] 4. Protocols for a Grant Number
[X] 5. Count of NCI Sponsored Trials with Grant Numbers
[X] 6. Count of trials with NCI Grant Information
[X] 7. Inactive Intramural trials with Special Category
[X] 8. NIH Closed Trials with No Special Category
[X] 9. NIH Trials with No Special Category

All Ad-hoc Queries have been updated.

BZDATETIME::2010-01-06 16:26:19
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::27

(In reply to comment #26)
> Summary Sheet
> [X] 1. Special Category Count

>
> All Ad-hoc Queries have been updated.
It looks like there are two more ad hoc reports in comment #2.

1. Transferred Protocols

2. Transferred Trials not received from NLM
(It appears to me that you may not need to do anything about this one because it should be looking at only InScope protocols that do not get converted. So it should be looking at CTGov documents because none was created).

Also, in Comment # 2 I mentioned the CDR Report but it appears we have already made changes to this report in another issue?

BZDATETIME::2010-01-07 11:26:34
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::28

(In reply to comment #27)
> It looks like there are two more ad hoc reports in comment #2.

Sorry, I thought the list in comment #4 was a complete list. I'll look at the others.

Summary Sheet
[X] 1. Special Category Count
Note: Report does not exist
[X] 2. Protocols with NIHGrantContract type
[X] 3. Protocols w/Special Category
[X] 4. Protocols for a Grant Number
[X] 5. Count of NCI Sponsored Trials with Grant Numbers
[X] 6. Count of trials with NCI Grant Information
[X] 7. Inactive Intramural trials with Special Category
[X] 8. NIH Closed Trials with No Special Category
[X] 9. NIH Trials with No Special Category
[ ]10. Transferred Protocols
[ ]11. Transferred Trials not received from NLM
[ ]12. Protocol Transfer of Ownership Responses (Admin Report)
[ ]13. CTGov Transfer Report by Organization and Status (Admin Report)

BZDATETIME::2010-01-07 11:28:24
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::29

(In reply to comment #27)
> So it should be looking at CTGov documents because none was created).

I'm guessing this was a typo and should read:
So it should not be looking at CTGov documents because none was created.

Is that correct?

BZDATETIME::2010-01-11 13:18:51
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::30

(In reply to comment #29)
> (In reply to comment #27)
> > So it should be looking at CTGov documents because none was created).
>
> I'm guessing this was a typo and should read:
> So it should not be looking at CTGov documents because none was created.
>
> Is that correct?

That is correct, Thank you!

BZDATETIME::2010-01-11 17:03:08
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::31

The old and new SQL query from the ad-hoc query interface
Transferred Protocols

The new query has been saved on BACH.

Attachment SQL_Queries.txt has been added with description: Ad-hoc Query: Transferred Protocols

BZDATETIME::2010-01-11 17:46:54
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::32

(In reply to comment #27)

[ ]11. Transferred Trials not received from NLM

> 2. Transferred Trials not received from NLM
> (It appears to me that you may not need to do anything about this one because
> it should be looking at only InScope protocols that do not get converted. So it
> should be looking at CTGov documents because none was created).

I don't understand this request. Wouldn't all transferred InScopeProtocols fit this criteria?

BZDATETIME::2010-01-12 15:33:58
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::33

(In reply to comment #32)
> (In reply to comment #27)
>
> [ ]11. Transferred Trials not received from NLM
>
> > 2. Transferred Trials not received from NLM
> > (It appears to me that you may not need to do anything about this one because
> > it should be looking at only InScope protocols that do not get converted. So it
> > should be looking at CTGov documents because none was created).
>
> I don't understand this request. Wouldn't all transferred InScopeProtocols fit
> this criteria?

No. There are some trials that we have marked to be transferred but they never get converted because they do not meet the criteria set in the import software. This query is supposed to report these trials. These trials remain InScope trials until we remove the IDs from the duplicate list.

BZDATETIME::2010-01-13 15:33:19
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::34

(In reply to comment #31)
> Created an attachment (id=1847) [details]
> Ad-hoc Query: Transferred Protocols
>
> The old and new SQL query from the ad-hoc query interface
> Transferred Protocols
>
> The new query has been saved on BACH.

Verified on Bach. Thanks!

BZDATETIME::2010-02-18 12:48:31
BZCOMMENTOR::Bob Kline
BZCOMMENT::35

Dropped priority at status meeting.

BZDATETIME::2010-03-15 17:20:12
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::36

(In reply to comment #28)
> 13. CTGov Transfer Report by Organization and Status (Admin Report)

I want to make sure I'm not working on the wrong report (since the menu item as it's listed doesn't exist as far as I can tell).
We are talking about one of these report, right?

• Protocol Transfer of Ownership Responses (Batch Job)

• Protocol Transfer of Ownership Responses by Org/Status

BZDATETIME::2010-03-15 17:33:32
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::37

(In reply to comment #36)
> (In reply to comment #28)
> > 13. CTGov Transfer Report by Organization and Status (Admin Report)
>
> I want to make sure I'm not working on the wrong report (since the menu item as
> it's listed doesn't exist as far as I can tell).
> We are talking about one of these report, right?
> - Protocol Transfer of Ownership Responses (Batch Job)
> - Protocol Transfer of Ownership Responses by Org/Status

That is correct.

Protocol Transfer of Ownership Responses by Org/Status

BZDATETIME::2010-03-18 15:58:11
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::38

Volker:
Please proceed with the changes for the two reports:

• Protocol Transfer of Ownership Responses (Batch Job)

• Protocol Transfer of Ownership Responses by Org/Status

Each of them have two spreadsheets. One looks at transferred trials and the other looks at trials that have not been transferred. Which means you need to consider CTGov trials that have been converted.

On the issue of what is the equivalent of the Lead organization in the CTGov Protocol, wouldn’t it be the LeadSponsor in the CTGov Protocol?

BZDATETIME::2010-03-24 15:15:20
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::39

(In reply to comment #38)
> Each of them have two spreadsheets. One looks at transferred trials and the
> other looks at trials that have not been transferred.

The part or the report that looks at the transferred protocols currently only looks at the InScopeProtocol information, which means it only includes protocols that are about to be transferred but haven't been transferred yet.
For the updated report, are you looking to list these protocols as well or do you only want to see the protocols that already have been transferred and are now CTGovProtocols?

BZDATETIME::2010-03-25 10:28:18
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::40

(In reply to comment #39)
> (In reply to comment #38)
> > Each of them have two spreadsheets. One looks at transferred trials and the
> > other looks at trials that have not been transferred.
>
> The part or the report that looks at the transferred protocols currently only
> looks at the InScopeProtocol information, which means it only includes
> protocols that are about to be transferred but haven't been transferred yet.
> For the updated report, are you looking to list these protocols as well or do
> you only want to see the protocols that already have been transferred and are
> now CTGovProtocols?

For the updated report, we want to see the CTGovProtocols that were converted from InScopeProtocols because some of the InScopeProtocols with the transfer info do not get transferred as explained below:

The original requirement for the 'transferred' tab of the spreadsheet is just the presence of the <CTGovOwnershipTransferInfo> block. When this report was made, we were not converting the Inscope protocols to CTGov protocols so the pr

BZDATETIME::2010-03-25 10:58:25
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::41

I am having problems posting longer comments so I included my response in the attachment

Attachment Transfer Reports.doc has been added with description: Transfer report response

BZDATETIME::2010-03-25 21:12:47
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::42

> the presence of the CTGovOwnershipTransferInfo block alone is not
> enough to say that a trial has been transferred.

There are only about 40 CTGovProtocols for which a transferred protocol doesn't have the CTGovOwnershipTransferInfo block.
Are these exceptions or are these protocol documents that haven't been imported since they had been transferred?

BZDATETIME::2010-03-26 14:43:46
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::43

William, I'm reading your explanation again:

> The trial should have been converted into a CTGovProtocol to be labeled
> transferred. Additionally, there are some InScopeProtocols that do not get
> converted for various reasons and it will not be accurate to include these as
> having been transferred.

Isn't it correct to say that a transferred protocol must be of the type CTGovProtocol and must contain the CTGovOwnershiptTransferInfo (CTGOTI) block?
This is definitely true for the current conversion process.
For the older conversion process - when we created a new CDR document of type CTGovProtocol when converting an InScopeProtocol - the same is true.
For those InScopeProtocols that do contain the CTGOTI block and got transferred we'll find a CTGovProtocol. For those that do contain the CTGOTI block that did not get transferred we won't find one.

BZDATETIME::2010-03-26 17:08:51
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::44

Based on my understanding I have modified the report
Protocol Transfer of Ownership Responses by Org/Status

to display CTGovProtocols on the 'Transferred' tab.

Since the data is very old on MAHLER I have copied the report to FRANCK for review.

BZDATETIME::2010-03-26 17:12:33
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::45

(In reply to comment #43)
> William, I'm reading your explanation again:
> > The trial should have been converted into a CTGovProtocol to be labeled
> > transferred. Additionally, there are some InScopeProtocols that do not get
> > converted for various reasons and it will not be accurate to include these as
> > having been transferred.
> Isn't it correct to say that a transferred protocol must be of the type
> CTGovProtocol and must contain the CTGovOwnershiptTransferInfo (CTGOTI)
> block?
> This is definitely true for the current conversion process.
> For the older conversion process - when we created a new CDR document of type
> CTGovProtocol when converting an InScopeProtocol - the same is true.
> For those InScopeProtocols that do contain the CTGOTI block and got transferred
> we'll find a CTGovProtocol. For those that do contain the CTGOTI block that
> did not get transferred we won't find one.

Yes. All of the above is true.

BZDATETIME::2010-04-01 11:21:20
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::46

I can see the CTGov documents on the report. For the Inscope documents that have been converted using the current procedure, the report displays the OrgStudyID as the primary ID which is technically correct for CTGov protocols. But this also the same as the CDR ID.

Kim:
Is this OK with you or you will want the InScope Primary ID to be displayed? The InScope primary id will be found in the PDQ Admin Info Block.

BZDATETIME::2010-04-01 11:29:24
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::47

(In reply to comment #46)
> the report displays the OrgStudyID as the primary ID which is technically
> correct for CTGov protocols.
> But this also the same as the CDR ID.

I thought the reason for this is that CTGov is using our CDR-ID as the primary ID because we are - from their point-of-view - the owner of the protocol and the ID will stay this way until the new responsible party has changed the ID.

Anyway, the program is picking up the OrgStudyID from the CTGovProtocols.

BZDATETIME::2010-04-06 13:50:29
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::48

I'm waiting for the answer to the question in comment #46 before I'll go ahead with the changes to the last report of this bunch.

BZDATETIME::2010-04-06 14:07:11
BZCOMMENTOR::Kim Eckley
BZCOMMENT::49

(In reply to comment #48)
> I'm waiting for the answer to the question in comment #46 before I'll go ahead
> with the changes to the last report of this bunch.

We need the InScope Primary ID to display, as this report is sent to cancer centers, and they have no idea what our CDR ID is - and will not be able to reconcile otherwise.

BZDATETIME::2010-04-06 16:53:50
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::50

I've added the necessary query_term definition:

/CTGovProtocol/PDQAdminInfo/PDQProtocolIDs/PrimaryID/IDString

re-indexed the CTGovProtocol documents and modified the report to pick up the InScopePrimaryID instead of the GTGov OrgStudyID.

This is ready for review on FRANCK.

BZDATETIME::2010-04-08 16:56:52
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::51

(In reply to comment #50)
> I've added the necessary query_term definition:
>
> /CTGovProtocol/PDQAdminInfo/PDQProtocolIDs/PrimaryID/IDString
>
> re-indexed the CTGovProtocol documents and modified the report to pick up the
> InScopePrimaryID instead of the GTGov OrgStudyID.
>
> This is ready for review on FRANCK.

Verified on Franck.

Kim:
Can you take a look before it is promoted to Bach?

BZDATETIME::2010-04-09 08:43:10
BZCOMMENTOR::Kim Eckley
BZCOMMENT::52

(In reply to comment #51)
> (In reply to comment #50)
> > I've added the necessary query_term definition:
> >
> > /CTGovProtocol/PDQAdminInfo/PDQProtocolIDs/PrimaryID/IDString
> >
> > re-indexed the CTGovProtocol documents and modified the report to pick up the
> > InScopePrimaryID instead of the GTGov OrgStudyID.
> >
> > This is ready for review on FRANCK.
> Verified on Franck.
> Kim:
> Can you take a look before it is promoted to Bach?

Verified on Franck. Please promote.

BZDATETIME::2010-04-14 11:45:01
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::53

(In reply to comment #38)
> - Protocol Transfer of Ownership Responses (Batch Job)
> - Protocol Transfer of Ownership Responses by Org/Status

The last of this bunch of "transfer reports" has been modified. The batch job is now ready for review on FRANCK and MAHLER.

BZDATETIME::2010-04-20 15:54:50
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::54

(In reply to comment #53)
> (In reply to comment #38)
> > - Protocol Transfer of Ownership Responses (Batch Job)
> > - Protocol Transfer of Ownership Responses by Org/Status
>
> The last of this bunch of "transfer reports" has been modified. The batch job
> is now ready for review on FRANCK and MAHLER.

I ran the batch report on Franck and it appears to be working fine. It does include the CTGov trials as expected. However, it also includes the repeated grant type (P30-P30-CA0000) in the GrantNo column. I know we changed this in the notification email but I don't remember if we changed it in the report. Kim can confirm but it probably doesn't matter that the grant type is repeated in this report.

**I believe Kim would like to take a look before this and the Org/Status report are promoted to Bach.

BZDATETIME::2010-04-21 09:20:02
BZCOMMENTOR::Kim Eckley
BZCOMMENT::55

(In reply to comment #54)
However, it also includes the repeated
> grant type (P30-P30-CA0000) in the GrantNo column. I know we changed this in
> the notification email but I don't remember if we changed it in the report. Kim
> can confirm but it probably doesn't matter that the grant type is repeated in
> this report.

It would be nice to not have the duplication, but not critical for this report.

> **I believe Kim would like to take a look before this and the Org/Status report
> are promoted to Bach.

I won't be able to check this out until Friday. I'll try to respond again then.

BZDATETIME::2010-04-21 11:55:47
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::56

(In reply to comment #55)
> It would be nice to not have the duplication, but not critical for this report.

I'm a little bit wondering why the incorrect data should be corrected in the display rather than the data itself?
If we correct the data display for every report nobody will pay any attention to the fact that it's entered incorrectly and should be changed, shouldn't it?

Having said that, just let me know if you want me to change it for this report or not.

BZDATETIME::2010-05-05 12:49:46
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::57

As discussed in last weeks status meeting, since this report is used only internally we want to leave the display of the grant numbers as is. This will allow CIAT staff to possibly identify and fix those protocols for which the GrantType/GrantNumber needs to get fixed.

BZDATETIME::2010-05-17 11:29:39
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::58

The last report of this issue is still waiting to get QC'ed.

BZDATETIME::2010-05-18 10:13:36
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::59

(In reply to comment #55)

> > **I believe Kim would like to take a look before this and the Org/Status report
> > are promoted to Bach.
>
> I won't be able to check this out until Friday. I'll try to respond again then.

Kim,
Have you been able to review this report? It is waiting to be promoted to Bach.

BZDATETIME::2010-05-18 12:02:19
BZCOMMENTOR::Kim Eckley
BZCOMMENT::60

(In reply to comment #58)
> The last report of this issue is still waiting to get QC'ed.

Verfied - please promote.

BZDATETIME::2010-05-19 18:56:56
BZCOMMENTOR::Volker Englisch
BZCOMMENT::61

The following report has been copied to FRANCK and BACH:
CdrLongReports.py - R9626

Please verify on BACH and close this bug.

BZDATETIME::2010-05-21 13:33:16
BZCOMMENTOR::Kim Eckley
BZCOMMENT::62

(In reply to comment #61)
> The following report has been copied to FRANCK and BACH:
> CdrLongReports.py - R9626
> Please verify on BACH and close this bug.

Verified on BACH.

William - please close or verify/close as you see fit.

BZDATETIME::2010-05-24 11:55:44
BZCOMMENTOR::William Osei-Poku
BZCOMMENT::63

(In reply to comment #62)
> (In reply to comment #61)
> > The following report has been copied to FRANCK and BACH:
> > CdrLongReports.py - R9626
> > Please verify on BACH and close this bug.
>
>
>
> Verified on BACH.
>
> William - please close or verify/close as you see fit.

Looks good. Issue Closed. Than you!