Suppr超能文献

创伤登记处的数据质量证据:一项系统综述。

Evidence of data quality in trauma registries: A systematic review.

作者信息

Porgo Teegwendé Valérie, Moore Lynne, Tardif Pier-Alexandre

机构信息

From the Axe Santé des populations et pratiques optimales en santé (traumatologie-urgence-soins intensifs) (T.V.P., L.M., P.-A.T.), Centre de Recherche du CHU de Québec - Hôpital de l'Enfant-Jésus, Université Laval, Québec City; and Department of social and preventative medicine (T.V.P., L.M., P.-A.T.), Université Laval, Quebec, Canada.

出版信息

J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016 Apr;80(4):648-58. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000000970.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Trauma registries are clinical databases designed for quality improvement activities and research and have made important contributions to the improvements in trauma care during the last few decades. The effectiveness of trauma registries in improving patient outcomes depends on data quality (DQ). However, our understanding of DQ in trauma registries is limited. The objective of this study was to review evidence of the completeness, accuracy, precision, correctness, consistency, and timeliness of data in trauma registries.

METHODS

A systematic review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library was performed including studies evaluating trauma registry DQ based on completeness, accuracy, precision, correctness, consistency, or timeliness. We also searched MEDLINE to identify regional, national, and international trauma registries whose data were used 10 times or more in original studies in the last 10 years; administrators of those registries were contacted to obtain their latest DQ report. Two authors abstracted the data independently.

RESULTS

The search retrieved 7,495 distinct published articles, of which 10 were eligible for inclusion. We also reviewed DQ reports from five provincial and international trauma registries. Evaluation was mostly based on completeness with values between 46.8% (mechanism of injury) and 100% (age and sex). Accuracy was between 81.0% (operating room time) and 99.8% (sex). No evidence of data precision or timeliness was available. Correctness varied from 47.6% (Injury Severity Score [ISS]) to 83.2% (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] score) and consistency between variables from 87.5% (International Classification of Disease--9th Rev.--Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM]/Abbreviated Injury Scale [AIS]) to 99.6% (procedure time).

CONCLUSION

In the few studies we identified, DQ evaluation in trauma registries was mostly based on completeness. There is a need to develop a standardized and reproducible method to evaluate DQ in trauma registries. Determinants of DQ and the impact of DQ on trauma registry analyses such as benchmarking with quality indicators should also be explored.

摘要

背景

创伤登记系统是为质量改进活动和研究而设计的临床数据库,在过去几十年里为改善创伤护理做出了重要贡献。创伤登记系统在改善患者预后方面的有效性取决于数据质量(DQ)。然而,我们对创伤登记系统中数据质量的理解有限。本研究的目的是回顾创伤登记系统中数据的完整性、准确性、精确性、正确性、一致性和及时性的证据。

方法

使用MEDLINE、EMBASE、科学网、护理学与健康领域数据库(CINAHL)和考克兰图书馆进行系统评价,纳入基于完整性、准确性、精确性、正确性、一致性或及时性评估创伤登记系统数据质量的研究。我们还检索了MEDLINE,以识别在过去10年的原始研究中数据被使用10次或更多次的地区、国家和国际创伤登记系统;联系了这些登记系统的管理员以获取他们最新的数据质量报告。两位作者独立提取数据。

结果

检索到7495篇不同的已发表文章,其中10篇符合纳入标准。我们还回顾了五个省级和国际创伤登记系统的数据质量报告。评估主要基于完整性,数值在46.8%(损伤机制)至100%(年龄和性别)之间。准确性在81.0%(手术室时间)至99.8%(性别)之间。没有数据精确性或及时性的证据。正确性从47.6%(损伤严重程度评分[ISS])到83.2%(格拉斯哥昏迷量表[GCS]评分)不等,变量之间的一致性从87.5%(国际疾病分类第九版临床修订本[ICD-9-CM]/简明损伤定级[AIS])到99.6%(手术时间)不等。

结论

在我们确定的少数研究中,创伤登记系统中的数据质量评估主要基于完整性。需要开发一种标准化且可重复的方法来评估创伤登记系统中的数据质量。还应探索数据质量的决定因素以及数据质量对创伤登记系统分析(如与质量指标进行基准对比)的影响。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验