SAFETYLIT WEEKLY UPDATE

We compile citations and summaries of about 400 new articles every week.
RSS Feed

HELP: Tutorials | FAQ
CONTACT US: Contact info

Search Results

Journal Article

Citation

Simko LC, Chen L, Amtmann D, Gibran NS, Herndon D, Kowalske K, Miller AC, Bulger E, Friedman R, Wolfe A, Chung KK, Mosier M, Jeng J, Giacino JT, Zafonte R, Kazis LE, Schneider JC, Ryan CM. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2019; 100(5): 891-898.

Affiliation

Massachusetts General Hospital, Shriners Hospitals for Children-Boston, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. Electronic address: cryan@mgh.harvard.edu.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2019, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.apmr.2018.10.004

PMID

31030731

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Common data elements (CDEs) promote data sharing, standardization, and uniform data collection, which facilitate meta-analyses and comparisons of studies. Currently, there is no set of CDEs for all trauma populations, but their creation would allow researchers to leverage existing databases to maximize research on trauma outcomes. The purpose of this study is to assess the extent of common data collection among 5 trauma databases.

DESIGN: The data dictionaries of 5 trauma databases were examined to determine the extent of common data collection. Databases included 2 acute care databases (American Burn Association's National Burn Data Standard and American College of Surgeons' National Trauma Data Standard) and 3 longitudinal trauma databases (Burn, Traumatic Brain Injury, Spinal Cord Injury Model System National Databases). Data elements and data values were compared across the databases. Quantitative and qualitative variations in the data were identified to highlight meaningful differences between datasets. SETTING: N/A. PARTICIPANTS: N/A. INTERVENTIONS: N/A. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: N/A.

RESULTS: Of the 30 data elements examined, 14 (47%) were present in all 5 databases. Another 9 (30%) elements were present in 4 of the 5 databases. The number of elements present in each database ranged from 23 (77%) to 26 (86%). There were inconsistencies in the data values across the databases. Twelve of the 14 data elements present in all 5 databases exhibited differences in data values.

CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates inconsistencies in the documentation of data elements in 5 common trauma databases. These discrepancies are a barrier to database harmonization and to maximizing the use of these databases through linking, pooling, and comparing data. A collaborative effort is required to develop a standardized set of elements for trauma research.

Copyright © 2018 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. All rights reserved.


Language: en

Keywords

Common data elements; Database; Rehabilitation; Rehabilitation research

NEW SEARCH


All SafetyLit records are available for automatic download to Zotero & Mendeley
Print