Georgetown University School of Medicine, 3900 Reservoir Road, NW, Washington, DC, 20007, USA.
UCLA Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, 10833 LeConte Avenue, 76-119 CHS, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-6902, USA.
J Orthop Surg Res. 2021 Jun 7;16(1):363. doi: 10.1186/s13018-021-02478-3.
Academic trauma institutions rely on fracture databases as research and quality control tools. Frequently, these databases are populated by trainees, but the completeness and accuracy of such databases has not yet been evaluated. The purpose of this study is to determine the capture rate of a resident-populated database in collecting extremity fractures and to determine the accuracy of assigned Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) classifications.
A retrospective study was performed at a level 1 trauma center of all adult patients who underwent treatment for extremity fractures after an emergency department or inpatient consultation. A 20% random sample was taken from these entries and compared to a resident-populated fracture database designed to capture the same patients. For all matching records containing a resident-assigned OTA classification, relevant imaging was blindly reviewed by a trauma fellowship-trained orthopedic attending surgeon for fracture pattern classification. Resident OTA classifications were compared to this gold standard to determine overall accuracy rate.
Three hundred eighteen (80%) out of 400 entries were captured by the resident-populated database. Two hundred thirty-one of these 318 entries contained an OTA classification. One hundred fifty-three (66%) of these 231 entries demonstrated concordance between resident and attending assigned OTA classifications. On subgroup analysis, 133 (70%) of the 190 lower extremity classifications were accurately identified as compared to just 20 (49%) of the 41 upper extremity classifications (p = 0.009). Seventy-nine (65%) of the 121 end segment fractures showed agreement versus 42 (67%) of the 63 diaphyseal injury patterns (p = 0.85). Accuracy of classification did not significantly vary by resident year of training (p = 0.142).
Trainee generated databases at academic institutions may be subject to incomplete data entry and inaccurate fracture classifications. Quality control measures should be instituted to ensure accuracy in such databases if efforts are invested with the expectation of useful information.
学术创伤机构依赖骨折数据库作为研究和质量控制工具。这些数据库经常由受训者填充,但尚未评估此类数据库的完整性和准确性。本研究的目的是确定由住院医师填充的数据库在收集四肢骨折方面的捕获率,并确定分配的骨科创伤协会(OTA)分类的准确性。
在一家一级创伤中心,对所有因急诊科或住院会诊而接受四肢骨折治疗的成年患者进行回顾性研究。从这些条目随机抽取 20%的样本,并与旨在捕获相同患者的住院医师填充骨折数据库进行比较。对于所有包含住院医师分配的 OTA 分类的匹配记录,由创伤 fellowship培训的骨科主治外科医生对相关影像学进行盲法审查,以确定骨折模式分类。将住院医师的 OTA 分类与这一金标准进行比较,以确定总体准确性。
在住院医师填充的数据库中捕获了 400 个条目中的 318 个(80%)。在这 318 个条目中有 231 个包含 OTA 分类。在这 231 个条目中,有 153 个(66%)与住院医师和主治外科医生分配的 OTA 分类一致。在亚组分析中,与 41 个上肢分类相比,190 个下肢分类中有 133 个(70%)被准确识别,而只有 20 个(49%)(p=0.009)。在 63 个骨干损伤模式中,79 个(65%)末端节段骨折与 42 个(67%)表现出一致(p=0.85)。分类的准确性并未因住院医师培训年限的不同而显著变化(p=0.142)。
学术机构的受训者生成的数据库可能存在数据录入不完整和骨折分类不准确的问题。如果投入精力并期望获得有用信息,则应采取质量控制措施来确保此类数据库的准确性。