Monash Injury Research Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
BMJ Open. 2013 Jul 17;3(7). doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003222. Print 2013.
Hospital discharge data (HDD) in many health systems do not capture the date of injury (DOI); the absence of this date hinders researchers' ability to distinguish repeat from incident injury admissions. Various approaches using somewhat arbitrary criteria have been explored to increase the accuracy of incident injury identification. However, these approaches have not been validated against a data source which contains DOI. The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of evidence-based criteria for identifying fall-related incident hip fractures in the absence of DOI using HDD containing DOI as the reference standard.
Retrospective database study.
New Zealand.
8761 patients aged 65+ years admitted for fall-related hip fracture between 1 July 2005 and 30 June 2008, inclusive.
We defined person-identifying HDD containing DOI as the reference standard and calculated measures of the accuracy of evidence-based criteria for identifying fall-related incident hip fractures from HDD not containing DOI. The criteria were principal diagnosis of hip fracture, mechanism of injury indicating a fall, admission type emergency, admission source other than a transfer and presence of hip operation code(s). For a subsequent fall-related hip fracture, additional criteria were time between successive hip fractures ≥120 days, and all external cause-of-injury codes being different to those for the previous hip fracture.
The sensitivity and specificity of the criteria for identifying fall-related incident hip fractures from data not containing DOI were 96.7% and 99.3%, respectively, compared with the reference standard. The application of these criteria resulted in a slight underestimation of the percentage of patients with multiple hip fractures.
Although it is preferable to have DOI; this study demonstrates that evidence-based criteria can be used to reliably identify fall-related incident hip fractures from the person-identifying HDD when DOI is unavailable.
在许多医疗体系中,医院出院数据(HDD)并未记录损伤日期(DOI);这一数据的缺失阻碍了研究人员区分重复损伤和初次损伤入院的能力。为了提高初次损伤识别的准确性,研究人员已经探索了多种使用某种程度上任意标准的方法。然而,这些方法尚未针对包含 DOI 的数据源进行验证。本研究旨在确定在缺乏 DOI 的情况下,使用包含 DOI 的 HDD 作为参考标准,通过基于证据的标准来识别与跌倒相关的初次髋部骨折的准确性。
回顾性数据库研究。
新西兰。
2005 年 7 月 1 日至 2008 年 6 月 30 日期间,年龄在 65 岁以上因跌倒导致髋部骨折入院的 8761 例患者。
我们将包含 DOI 的人员识别 HDD 定义为参考标准,并从不包含 DOI 的 HDD 中计算出用于识别与跌倒相关的初次髋部骨折的基于证据的标准的准确性测量值。这些标准是髋部骨折的主要诊断、表明跌倒的损伤机制、紧急入院类型、非转院来源的入院和髋部手术代码的存在。对于随后的跌倒相关髋部骨折,额外的标准是两次髋部骨折之间的时间间隔大于等于 120 天,且所有外部损伤原因代码与前一次髋部骨折的代码不同。
与参考标准相比,不包含 DOI 的数据中用于识别与跌倒相关的初次髋部骨折的标准的灵敏度和特异性分别为 96.7%和 99.3%。应用这些标准略微低估了具有多重髋部骨折的患者的百分比。
尽管最好有 DOI,但本研究表明,在没有 DOI 的情况下,可以使用基于证据的标准从包含人员身份识别的 HDD 中可靠地识别与跌倒相关的初次髋部骨折。