Dataset Information

Whose Benchmark Is Right? Validating Venous Thromboembolism Events Between Trauma Registries and Hospital Administrative Databases.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Venous thromboembolism (VTE) events are tracked in trauma registries and by administrative data sets. Both databases are used to assess outcomes, despite having varying processes for data capture. STUDY DESIGN:This study was performed at an urban, university-based, Level I trauma center from 2004 to 2014. Retrospective review of the trauma registry and the hospital's administrative database was performed querying for all VTEs. Each VTE was then validated through manual chart review. Confirmed events were those with radiographic evidence of VTE by ultrasound, CT, and/or ventilation-perfusion scan. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were calculated and compared between databases. RESULTS:There were 19,353 trauma patients admitted during the study period; 656 VTEs were identified in the registry and 890 were identified via administrative data; 527 potential events were identified by both databases; 129 events were only in registry; and 363 were only found in the administrative database. We confirmed 636 of 656 events in registry (positive predictive value, 97%; 95% CI, 95.6% to 98.3%) vs 815 of 890 events in administrative data (positive predictive value, 91.6%; 95% CI, 89.75% to 93.4%; p < 0.001). Sensitivity was higher for administrative (87.2% vs 68.0%; p < 0.001), as 299 confirmed VTE events were not in the registry. Differences between the 2 databases were diminished when the analysis excluded untreated events and those present on admission. Twenty-three percent of validated deep vein thrombosis events in the registry were upper extremity events. CONCLUSIONS:The trauma registry showed higher specificity and lower sensitivity compared with administrative data. The low false-positive rate of the trauma registry supports its validity in VTE outcomes research. Additional investigation is needed to evaluate the relevance of the variable sensitivity, likely due to definitional differences. Supplementation of trauma registry data with administrative data can strengthen its completeness.

SUBMITTER: Miano TA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6487217 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Whose Benchmark Is Right? Validating Venous Thromboembolism Events Between Trauma Registries and Hospital Administrative Databases.

Miano Todd A TA Abelian Grigor G Seamon Mark J MJ Chreiman Kristen K Reilly Patrick M PM Martin Niels D ND

Journal of the American College of Surgeons 20190215 5

<h4>Background</h4>Venous thromboembolism (VTE) events are tracked in trauma registries and by administrative data sets. Both databases are used to assess outcomes, despite having varying processes for data capture.<h4>Study design</h4>This study was performed at an urban, university-based, Level I trauma center from 2004 to 2014. Retrospective review of the trauma registry and the hospital's administrative database was performed querying for all VTEs. Each VTE was then validated through manual ...[more]

PMID: 30772443

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAdministrative healthcare databases are useful and inexpensive tools that can provide a comprehensive assessment of the burden of diseases in terms of major outcomes, such as mortality, hospital readmissions, and use of healthcare resources. However, a crucial issue is the reliability of information gathered. The aim of this study was to validate ICD-9 codes for several major cardiovascular conditions, i.e., acute myocardial infarction (AMI), atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF), and heart failure (HF), in order to use them for epidemiological, outcome, and health services research.MethodsData from the centralised administrative database of the Umbria Region (890,000 residents, located in Central Italy) were considered. Patients with a first hospital discharge for AMI, AF/flutter, and HF, between 2012 and 2014, were identified using ICD-9-CM codes in primary position. A sample of cases and non-cases was randomly selected, and the corresponding medical charts reviewed by specifically trained investigators. For each disease, case ascertainment was based on all clinical, laboratory, and instrumental examinations available in medical charts. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were calculated.ResultsWe reviewed 458 medical charts, 128 for AMI, 127 for AF/flutter, 127 for HF, and 76 of non-cases for each condition. Diagnostic accuracy measures of the original discharge diagnosis were as follows. AMI: sensitivity 98% (95% CI, 94-100%), specificity 91% (95% CI, 83-97%), positive predictive value (PPV) 95% (95% CI, 89-98%), negative predictive value (NPV) 97% (95% CI, 91-100%). AF/flutter: sensitivity 95% (95% CI, 90-98%), specificity 95% (95% CI, 87-99%), PPV 97% (95% CI, 92-99%), NPV 92% (95% CI, 84-97%). HF: sensitivity 96% (95% CI, 91-99%), specificity 90% (95% CI, 81-96%), PPV 94% (95% CI, 88-97%), NPV 93% (95% CI, 85-98%).ConclusionThe case ascertainment for AMI, AF and flutter, and HF, showed a high level of accuracy (≥ 90%). The healthcare administrative database of the Umbria Region can be confidently used for epidemiological, outcome, and health services research.

Project description:BackgroundStudies have shown routine ultrasound surveillance (RUSS) will facilitate deep vein thrombosis (DVT) detection in patients with trauma and reduce the subsequent incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE); however, the findings were inconsistent. In adults with trauma at a high risk of venous thromboembolism, this systematic review and meta-analysis compared RUSS outcomes with those of "no RUSS."MethodsThree databases were screened for relevant articles from inception to October 18, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing RUSS with no RUSS were included. We used relative risks (RRs), odds ratios (ORs), and mean differences to pool effect estimates for dichotomous and continuous outcomes. The cochrane risk of bias or the risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions were used to assess bias risk. The grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation framework assessed the certainty of the evidence.FindingsOut of 1685 articles, 5 met the inclusion criteria (RCT: 1; observational studies: 4). Observational studies suggested RUSS is associated with higher odds of DVT detection (OR, 4.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.13-7.57; very low certainty). Whereas higher risks of DVT were associated with RUSS in the RCT (distal DVT: RR, 15.48; 95% CI, 7.62-31.48; low certainty, and proximal DVT: RR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.04-5.39; very low certainty). Reduced odds of PE risk were observed with the RUSS (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.24-0.91; very low certainty). Observational studies indicated that RUSS had an uncertain effect on mortality (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.06-3.49). In the RCT, times to proximal and distal DVT diagnoses were shorter with RUSS (proximal DVT, mean difference 2.25 days shorter [95% CI, 5.74-1.24]; distal DVT, mean differences 1.56 days shorter [95% CI, 4.22-1.12]; very low certainty for both). Increasing bleeding risk was not linked to the RUSS group (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.31-4.92).InterpretationThe RUSS efficacy in adults with trauma at high risk for venous thromboembolism showed that it increases DVT detection, decreases PE incidence, and shortens the time to DVT diagnosis, with an uncertain impact on mortality. The evidence is low or very low in certainty because of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, and indirectness.

Dataset Information

Whose Benchmark Is Right? Validating Venous Thromboembolism Events Between Trauma Registries and Hospital Administrative Databases.

Publications

Whose Benchmark Is Right? Validating Venous Thromboembolism Events Between Trauma Registries and Hospital Administrative Databases.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets