TY  - JOUR
PY  - 2019//
TI  - Challenges to the standardization of trauma data collection in burn, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, and other trauma populations: a call for common data elements for acute and longitudinal trauma databases
JO  - Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation
A1  - Simko, Laura C.
A1  - Chen, Liang
A1  - Amtmann, Dagmar
A1  - Gibran, Nicole S.
A1  - Herndon, David
A1  - Kowalske, Karen
A1  - Miller, A. Cate
A1  - Bulger, Eileen
A1  - Friedman, Ryan
A1  - Wolfe, Audrey
A1  - Chung, Kevin K.
A1  - Mosier, Michael
A1  - Jeng, James
A1  - Giacino, Joseph T.
A1  - Zafonte, Ross
A1  - Kazis, Lewis E.
A1  - Schneider, Jeffrey C.
A1  - Ryan, Colleen M.
SP  - 891
EP  - 898
VL  - 100
IS  - 5
N2  - 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. <br><br>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. <br><br>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. <br><br>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.<br><br>Copyright © 2018 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. All rights reserved.<p />  <p>Language: en</p>
LA  - en
SN  - 0003-9993
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2018.10.004
ID  - ref1
ER  -