• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利：CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法，用中文像聊天一样搜索，搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐，让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版，准确专业，支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式，支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述，25分钟生成高质量综述，智能提取关键信息，辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

比较登记数据与政府评估数据以确定日本的严重创伤病例。

Comparison of registry and government evaluation data to ascertain severe trauma cases in Japan.

作者信息

Nakahara Shinji, Sakamoto Tetsuya, Fujita Takashi, Koyama Tomohide, Katayama Yoichi, Tanabe Seizan, Yamamoto Yasuhiro

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine Teikyo University School of Medicine Tokyo Japan.

Department of Emergency Medicine Sapporo Medical University Sapporo Japan.

出版信息

Acute Med Surg. 2017 Aug 7;4(4):432-438. doi: 10.1002/ams2.302. eCollection 2017 Oct.

DOI:10.1002/ams2.302
PMID:29123904
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5649299/
Abstract

AIMS

Accurate evaluation of health care quality requires high-quality data, and case ascertainment (confirming eligible cases and deaths) is a foundation for accurate data collection. This study examined the accuracy of case ascertainment from two Japanese data sources.

METHODS

Using hospital-level data, we investigated the concordance in ascertaining trauma cases between a nationwide trauma registry (the Japan Trauma Data Bank) and annual government evaluations of tertiary hospitals between April 2012 and March 2013. We compared the median values for trauma case volumes, numbers of deaths, and case fatality rates from both data sources, and also evaluated the variability in discrepancies for the intrahospital differences of these outcomes.

RESULTS

The analyses included 136 hospitals. In the registry and annual evaluation data, the median case volumes were 120.5 cases and 180.5 cases, respectively; the median numbers of deaths were 11 and 12, respectively; and the median case fatality rates were 8.1% and 6.4%, respectively. There was broad variability in the intrahospital differences in these outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The observed discordance between the two data sources implies that these data sources may have inaccuracies in case ascertainment. Measures are needed to evaluate and improve the accuracy of data from these sources.

摘要

目的

准确评估医疗质量需要高质量的数据，而病例确定（确认符合条件的病例和死亡情况）是准确收集数据的基础。本研究检验了来自两个日本数据源的病例确定的准确性。

方法

利用医院层面的数据，我们调查了2012年4月至2013年3月期间全国创伤登记处（日本创伤数据库）与政府对三级医院的年度评估在确定创伤病例方面的一致性。我们比较了两个数据源的创伤病例数量、死亡人数和病死率的中位数，还评估了这些结果在医院内部差异方面差异的变异性。

结果

分析纳入了136家医院。在登记处数据和年度评估数据中，病例数量中位数分别为120.5例和180.5例；死亡人数中位数分别为11人和12人；病死率中位数分别为8.1%和6.4%。这些结果在医院内部差异方面存在很大变异性。

结论

两个数据源之间观察到的不一致表明这些数据源在病例确定方面可能存在不准确之处。需要采取措施来评估和提高这些来源数据的准确性。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e23f/5649299/51c23464c474/AMS2-4-432-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e23f/5649299/277ebffd29a5/AMS2-4-432-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e23f/5649299/51c23464c474/AMS2-4-432-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e23f/5649299/277ebffd29a5/AMS2-4-432-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e23f/5649299/51c23464c474/AMS2-4-432-g002.jpg

相似文献

1
Comparison of registry and government evaluation data to ascertain severe trauma cases in Japan.比较登记数据与政府评估数据以确定日本的严重创伤病例。
Acute Med Surg. 2017 Aug 7;4(4):432-438. doi: 10.1002/ams2.302. eCollection 2017 Oct.
2
[Volume and health outcomes: evidence from systematic reviews and from evaluation of Italian hospital data].[容量与健康结果：来自系统评价和意大利医院数据评估的证据]
Epidemiol Prev. 2013 Mar-Jun;37(2-3 Suppl 2):1-100.
3
Trends in Firearm Injury and Motor Vehicle Crash Case Fatality by Age Group, 2003-2013.2003-2013 年按年龄组划分的枪支伤害和机动车碰撞事故死亡趋势。
JAMA Surg. 2019 Apr 1;154(4):305-310. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2018.4685.
4
Assessment of the completeness and accuracy of case ascertainment in the Michigan Stroke Registry.密歇根州卒中登记处病例确诊完整性和准确性的评估。
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014 Sep;7(5):757-63. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.113.000706. Epub 2014 Aug 26.
5
The missing dead: the problem of case ascertainment in the assessment of trauma center performance.失踪的死者：创伤中心绩效评估中的病例确定问题。
J Trauma. 2009 Apr;66(4):1218-24; discussion 1224-5. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31819a04d2.
6
Increased Severe Trauma Patient Volume is Associated With Survival Benefit and Reduced Total Health Care Costs: A Retrospective Observational Study Using a Japanese Nationwide Administrative Database.严重创伤患者数量增加与生存获益和降低总体医疗成本相关：一项使用日本全国行政数据库的回顾性观察研究。
Ann Surg. 2018 Dec;268(6):1091-1096. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002324.
7
[Peer review method for quality evaluation--methodology of Emergency Medicine Study Group for Quality about trauma management].[质量评估的同行评审方法——创伤管理质量急诊医学研究组方法学]
J Nippon Med Sch. 2004 Dec;71(6):371-8. doi: 10.1272/jnms.71.371.
8
Measuring hospital performance in congenital heart surgery: administrative versus clinical registry data.衡量先天性心脏病手术中的医院绩效：行政数据与临床登记数据对比
Ann Thorac Surg. 2015 Mar;99(3):932-8. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.10.069. Epub 2015 Jan 24.
9
Volume and health outcomes: evidence from systematic reviews and from evaluation of Italian hospital data.医疗服务量与健康结果：来自系统评价及意大利医院数据评估的证据
Epidemiol Prev. 2017 Sep-Dec;41(5-6 (Suppl 2)):1-128. doi: 10.19191/EP17.5-6S2.P001.100.
10
Identifying incident colorectal and lung cancer cases in health service utilisation databases in Australia: a validation study.在澳大利亚医疗服务利用数据库中识别结直肠癌和肺癌新发病例：一项验证研究。
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017 Feb 27;17(1):23. doi: 10.1186/s12911-017-0417-5.

引用本文的文献

1
Trends and characteristics of severe road traffic injuries in children: a nationwide cohort study in Japan.儿童严重道路交通伤害的趋势与特征：日本一项全国性队列研究
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2024 Dec;50(6):2631-2640. doi: 10.1007/s00068-023-02372-z. Epub 2023 Oct 17.
2
Current Status, Challenges, and Future Perspectives of Real-World Data and Real-World Evidence in Japan.日本真实世界数据与真实世界证据的现状、挑战及未来展望
Drugs Real World Outcomes. 2021 Dec;8(4):459-480. doi: 10.1007/s40801-021-00266-3. Epub 2021 Jun 19.

本文引用的文献

1
The trauma registry compared to All Patient Refined Diagnosis Groups (APR-DRG).与所有患者精细诊断分组（APR-DRG）相比的创伤登记。
Injury. 2017 May;48(5):1063-1068. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2016.12.026. Epub 2016 Dec 28.
2
Evidence of data quality in trauma registries: A systematic review.创伤登记处的数据质量证据：一项系统综述。
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016 Apr;80(4):648-58. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000000970.
3
Heterogeneity in Trauma Registry Data Quality: Implications for Regional and National Performance Improvement in Trauma.
创伤登记数据质量的异质性：对创伤领域区域和国家绩效改进的影响
J Am Coll Surg. 2016 Mar;222(3):288-95. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2015.11.035. Epub 2016 Jan 19.
4
Variability in interhospital trauma data coding and scoring: A challenge to the accuracy of aggregated trauma registries.医院间创伤数据编码与评分的差异：对汇总创伤登记准确性的挑战。
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2015 Sep;79(3):359-63. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000000788.
5
Measuring hospital performance in congenital heart surgery: administrative versus clinical registry data.衡量先天性心脏病手术中的医院绩效：行政数据与临床登记数据对比
Ann Thorac Surg. 2015 Mar;99(3):932-8. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.10.069. Epub 2015 Jan 24.
6
Emergency medicine in Japan.日本的急诊医学。
Keio J Med. 2010;59(4):131-9. doi: 10.2302/kjm.59.131.
7
Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses.使用 G*Power 3.1 进行统计功效分析：相关和回归分析的检验。
Behav Res Methods. 2009 Nov;41(4):1149-60. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149.
8
Comparison of injury patient information from hospitals with records in both the national trauma data bank and the nationwide inpatient sample.将来自医院的创伤患者信息与国家创伤数据库和全国住院患者样本中的记录进行比较。
J Trauma. 2008 Mar;64(3):768-79; discussion 779-80. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181620152.
9
The GAAP in quality measurement and reporting.质量衡量与报告中的公认会计原则。
JAMA. 2007 Oct 17;298(15):1800-2. doi: 10.1001/jama.298.15.1800.
10
Comparison of Maryland hospital discharge and trauma registry data.
J Trauma. 2005 Jan;58(1):154-61. doi: 10.1097/01.ta.0000119690.32257.b0.