Strange set analysis results!!!

[baylor2016]

Dear Experts,

I am using following syntax to get the number of patients who had a lab test (ID 1526664),

count(distinct {$<PAT_ID={'=COMPONENT_ID=1526664'}>}PAT_ID)

It returns only 1 even though there are 8 unique PAT_IDs. However, when 1526664 in the listbox is selected, this syntax returned correct number (8) of distinct PAT_ID. I cannot understand this. Please advice.

Sample project is attached for your reference.

Thanks in advance.

Longmatch.

[petter · Accepted solution]

This might be what you are looking for:

[baylor2016]

Dear Petter,

Thank you for your helps. I am trying to use Nicole Smith's method for this kind of work. Please refer her reply to my previous post - Nested aggregation helps. I just want to see know why it does not work here.

Thanks

Longmatch

[petter]

OK - so do you still want anyone to answer your question or did my suggestion answer it? If not please let us know.

[Anil_Babu_Samineni]

What is your Intend. And Above Provides expression seems work. What was you are expecting into?

[baylor2016]

Thank you - Petter and Anil,

Petter provided works but actually my question is what is the problem in my expression and the strange behavior in my sample project. I am planning to use this logic in my project for intersection set analysis.

[sunny_talwar]

May be you want to do this:

='1526664 Patient number:  ' & count(distinct {$<PAT_ID={"=WildMatch(Concat(DISTINCT COMPONENT_ID, ', '), '*1526664*')"}>}PAT_ID)

PAT_ID is made up of several COMPONENT_ID, so in order to check if one of them is 1526664, you need to either use WildMatch, Index or SubStringCount function with Concat() on COMPONENT_ID to make this work

[Nicole-Smith]

petter-s‌ gave the correct answer of:

count( {$<COMPONENT_ID={1526664}>} distinct PAT_ID)

You should go with this because it is the simplest approach.

Your last post needed aggregations within the set analysis, which is why it was more complicated.

[baylor2016]

Sunny, Thank you for your helps. Your solution works well. I wish I can also make yours as correct answer.

[sunny_talwar]

Hahahaha no problem my friend. My solution was just to explain why your attempt did not work, but I would go with what petter-s‌ gave because that is the way to do this .

Best,

Sunny