Duplication of Munich city for updated dataset for prospective reg in CT.gov

[delwen]

The splitting of city names generates an extra variable for Munich. We now have 3 variables for Munich instead of 2: München,LMU, and TU. We should only have LMU München and TU München. Need to adapt the string split.

[bgcarlisle]

This fixes the issue by inserting a dash between LMU and München in the underlying data sets

https://github.com/quest-bih/clinical-dashboard/commit/fae523216af7c2967f3e7f9dc5796ed0ed473d6f

All we need to do is update the CSV's on the server

[delwen]

Thanks. We still have a couple of differences in the way UMCs are encoded in the updated CT.gov prospective registration dataset vs. in the transformed IntoValue dataset (city in https://github.com/quest-bih/clinical-dashboard/blob/dashboard-updates/prep/intovalue-city-transforms.csv):

• "Duisburg-Essen" (transformed IntoValue) vs. "Duisburg" (prospective reg CT.gov)
• "Halle-Wittenberg" (transformed IntoValue) vs. "Halle" (prospective reg CT.gov)
• "Witten/Herdecke" (transformed IntoValue) vs "Witten-Herdecke" (prospective reg CT.gov)

This is problematic for the One UMC page since we select a UMC based on names in the transformed IntoValue dataset. As a result, the CT.gov data for those UMCs won't display even though we have the data. Proposed solutions: a) we could replace the UMC names in the prospective reg CT.gov dataset to match that in the transformed IntoValue dataset (which is the preferred name), b) we could create a separate look-up table for the prospective reg CT.gov dataset, as we did for IntoValue. Let's discuss.

Another issue is that in the IntoValue dataset, we have "Schleswig-Holstein" whereas in the prospective reg CT.gov dataset this UMC is represented as 2 separate UMCs ("Kiel" and "Lübeck"). Proposed solution: We could combine the data for Kiel and Lübeck in the prospective reg in CT.gov dataset (under Schleswig-Holstein). Let's discuss.

[delwen]

Just a note that regardless of what we decide wrt harmonization of city names between IntoValue and the updated CT.gov prospective registration dataset, we should also remember to adjust EUTT names accordingly.

[delwen]

@maia-sh, @bgcarlisle: let's keep track of our decisions on harmonisation of city names here

[bgcarlisle]

I think this should do it as far as clearing out the city-transforms for IV:

https://github.com/quest-bih/clinical-dashboard/commit/0661d1f2b2ad7a31a80c00029b2d4a2d191a65d7

[delwen]

Resolved with https://github.com/maia-sh/intovalue-data/pull/19 and https://github.com/maia-sh/intovalue-data/pull/22