Advertisement

Journal of Medical Systems

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 915–924 | Cite as

Performance Evaluation of a Web-Based System to Exchange Electronic Health Records Using Queueing Model (M/M/1)

  • Isabel de la Torre
  • Francisco Javier Díaz
  • Míriam Antón
  • Mario Martínez
  • José Fernando Díez
  • Daniel Boto
  • Miguel López
  • Roberto Hornero
  • María Isabel López
ORIGINAL PAPER

Abstract

Response time measurement of a web-based system is essential to evaluate its performance. This paper shows a comparison of the response times of a Web-based system for Ophthalmologic Electronic Health Records (EHRs), TeleOftalWeb. It makes use of different database models like Oracle 10 g, dbXML 2.0, Xindice 1.2, and eXist 1.1.1. The system’s modelling, which uses Tandem Queue networks, will allow us to estimate the service times of the different components of the system (CPU, network and databases). In order to calculate those times, associated to the different databases, benchmarking techniques are used. The final objective of the comparison is to choose the database system resulting in the lowest response time to TeleOftalWeb and to compare the obtained results using a new benchmarking.

Keywords

Databases Performance evaluation Queueing models Response times Web application 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research has been supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation under the project TEC2008-02241.

References

  1. 1.
    D’Ambrogio, A., and Iazeolla, G., Steps towards the automatic production of performance models of web applications. Comput. Netw. 41:29–39, 2003.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weyuker, E. J., and Vokolos, F. I., Experience with performance testing of software systems: Issues, an approach, and case study. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 26(12):1147–1156, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Halamka, J. D., Osterland, C., and Safran, C., CareWeb™, a web-based medical record for an integrated health care delivery system. Int. J. Med. Inform. 54:1–8, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chew, S. J., Cheng, H. M., Lam, D. S. C., Cheng, A. C. K., Leung, A. T. S., Chua, J. K. H., Yu, C. P., Balakrishnan, V., and Chan, W. K., OphthWeb-cost-effective telemedicine for ophthalmology. Hong Kong Med. J. 4:300–304, 1998.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hanzlicek, P., Spidlen, J., Heroutova, H., and Nagy, M., User interface of MUDR electronic health record. Int. J. Med. Inform. 74(2–4):221–227, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen, R., Enberg, G., Klein, G., Julius—a template based supplementary electronic health record system. BMC Med. Informat. Decis. Making 7–10, 2007.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Los, R., van Ginneken, A. M., de Wilde, M., and van der Lei, J., OpenSDE: Row modeling applied to generic structured data entry. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 11:162–165, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sudhakar, G. N. M., Karmouch, A., and Georganas, N. D., Design and performance evaluation considerations of a multimedia medical database. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 5(5):888–894, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zgrzywa, A., The evaluation of the response time for a tourist agency’s service system. Inf. Softw. Technol. 40:37–44, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    De la Torre, I., Díaz, F. J., Antón, M., Diez, J. F., Sainz, B., Lopez, M., Hornero, R., López, M. I., Choosing the most efficient database for a Web-based system to store and exchange Ophthalmologic Health Records. J. Med. Syst. 2010. In press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huang, E. W., and Liou, D., Performance Analysis of a Medical Record Exchanges Model. IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol. Biomed. 11(2):153–160, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hornero, R., López, M. I., Acebes, M., Calonge, T., Teleophthalmology for diabetic retinopathy screening in a rural area of Spain. Eighth Annual Meeting of the American Telemedicine Association (ATA’2003), Telemedicine Journal and e-Health, 111, 2003.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pardede, E., Rahay, J. W., and Taniar, D., XML data update management in XML-enabled database. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 74(2):170–195, 2008.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gross, D., Harris, C., Fundamentals of queueing theory. Third Edition. John Wiley and Sons, 2002.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bonifaci, V., An adversarial queueing model for online server routing. Theor. Comput. Sci. 381(1–3):280–287, 2007.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Böhme, T., and Rahm, E., Multi-user evaluation of XML data management systems with XMach-1. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. (LNCS) 2590:148–159, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    National Eye Institute [Online]. Available: http://www.nei.nih.gov.
  18. 18.
    Brooke, J., SUS: a quick and dirty usability scale, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Isabel de la Torre
    • 1
  • Francisco Javier Díaz
    • 1
  • Míriam Antón
    • 1
  • Mario Martínez
    • 1
  • José Fernando Díez
    • 1
  • Daniel Boto
    • 1
  • Miguel López
    • 1
  • Roberto Hornero
    • 1
  • María Isabel López
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Signal Theory and CommunicationsUniversity of ValladolidValladolidSpain
  2. 2.University Institute of Applied Ophthalmobiology (IOBA)University of ValladolidValladolidSpain

Personalised recommendations