We noticed that CO.COVALn and TS.TSVALn variable labels have the number appended. The IG gives advice in case 2 below that seems to conflict with this.
There are two scenarios where this topic arises:
Multiple qualifiers: there is more than one value to a qualifier, e.g. LOC, so the “main” variable has a value of “MULTIPLE” and the actual values go into SUPP. This case is addressed in IG 4.1.2.8.3. QNAM = “{variable name} {sequence number}”, QLABEL = “{variable label} <space> {sequence number}”.
Overflow fields: a result is longer than 200 chars so the bits >200 go into SUPP. This case is addressed in IG 4.1.5.3.2. QNAM = “{variable name} {sequence number}”, QLABEL = “{variable label}” (QLABEL matches the original exactly without a sequence number).
Can you advise if Pinnacle has another interpretation of IG section 4.1.5.3.2 or another reason why the TS.TSVALn and CO.COVALn variable labels are not as expected. Or is there a correction planned to the labels in the Pinnacle configs ?
I don't understand the question: it is you who is assigning the SDTM labels isn't it? Or are you talking about define.xml generation? Even then, it should be you who is in charge, not a software. Or is a validation error reported? Which one?
Pinnacle 21 uses cookies to make our site easier for you to use. By continuing to use this website, you agree to our use of cookies. For more info visit our Privacy Policy.
We noticed that CO.COVALn and TS.TSVALn variable labels have the number appended. The IG gives advice in case 2 below that seems to conflict with this.
There are two scenarios where this topic arises:
Can you advise if Pinnacle has another interpretation of IG section 4.1.5.3.2 or another reason why the TS.TSVALn and CO.COVALn variable labels are not as expected. Or is there a correction planned to the labels in the Pinnacle configs ?