Literature DB >> 21040114

Missing in action: a case study of the application of methods for dealing with missing data to trauma system benchmarking.

Gerard M O'Reilly1, Damien J Jolley, Peter A Cameron, Belinda Gabbe.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Trauma registry data are usually incomplete. Various methods for dealing with missing data have been used, some of which lead to biased results. One method that reduces bias, multiple imputation (MI), has not been widely adopted. There is no standardization of the approach to missing data across trauma registries.
OBJECTIVES: This study examined the effect of using selected methods for handling missing data on a recognized trauma outcome measure.
METHODS: Data from the Victorian State Trauma Registry (VSTR) were used for the period July 2003 to June 2008. Three methods for handling missing data were investigated: complete case analysis, single imputation, and MI. The latter was applied using five distinct models, each with a different combination of variables (Trauma and Injury Severity score [TRISS] variables; prehospital Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS], respiratory rate, and systolic blood pressure; arrival by ambulance; transfer to a second hospital; and whether the GCS was "legitimate" according to the TRISS definition). For each method, TRISS analysis (comparing actual and expected deaths) was performed; the W-score and Z-statistic were derived. A Z-statistic greater than 1.96 in absolute value was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: Of 10,180 cases, 2,398 (24%) were missing at least one of the component variables necessary for TRISS analysis. With the use of complete case analysis, the W-score was 0.54 unexpected survivors for every 100 cases, with a Z-statistic of -1.96. Using two approaches to single imputation, the W-scores were -1.41, with Z-statistics of -5.19 and -5.30. Applying four of the five combinations of variables used for MI, there was a statistically significant number of unexpected survivors (W = -0.60, Z = -2.23; W = -0.52, Z = -1.97; W = -0.53, Z = -1.97; W = -0.63, Z = -2.24). However, using MI confined to TRISS variables only, there was a statistically significant number of unexpected deaths (W = +0.52, Z = +1.98).
CONCLUSIONS: Missing data methods can influence the assessment of trauma care performance and need to be reported in all analyses. It is important that validated standardized approaches to dealing with missing data are universally adopted and reported.
© 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21040114     DOI: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2010.00887.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Emerg Med        ISSN: 1069-6563            Impact factor:   3.451


  12 in total

1.  Establishing a Multicentre Trauma Registry in India: An Evaluation of Data Completeness.

Authors:  Gowri Shivasabesan; Gerard M O'Reilly; Joseph Mathew; Mark C Fitzgerald; Amit Gupta; Nobhojit Roy; Manjul Joshipura; Naveen Sharma; Peter Cameron; Madonna Fahey; Teresa Howard; Zoe Cheung; Vineet Kumar; Bhavesh Jarwani; Kapil Dev Soni; Pankaj Patel; Advait Thakor; Mahesh Misra; Russell L Gruen; Biswadev Mitra
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 3.352

2.  30-Day In-hospital Trauma Mortality in Four Urban University Hospitals Using an Indian Trauma Registry.

Authors:  Nobhojit Roy; Martin Gerdin; Samarendra Ghosh; Amit Gupta; Vineet Kumar; Monty Khajanchi; Eric B Schneider; Russell Gruen; Göran Tomson; Johan von Schreeb
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 3.352

3.  Missing patients in "Major Trauma Registry" of Navarre: incidence and pattern.

Authors:  B A Ali; M Fortún; T Belzunegui; B Ibañez; K Cambra; A Galbete
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2016-08-23       Impact factor: 3.693

Review 4.  Influence of the National Trauma Data Bank on the study of trauma outcomes: is it time to set research best practices to further enhance its impact?

Authors:  Adil H Haider; Taimur Saleem; Jeffrey J Leow; Cassandra V Villegas; Mehreen Kisat; Eric B Schneider; Elliott R Haut; Kent A Stevens; Edward E Cornwell; Ellen J MacKenzie; David T Efron
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2012-02-07       Impact factor: 6.113

5.  Evaluation of trauma care in a mature level I trauma center in the Netherlands: outcomes in a Dutch mature level I trauma center.

Authors:  Koen W W Lansink; Amy C Gunning; Anique T E Spijkers; Luke P H Leenen
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 3.352

6.  Derivation and validation of actionable quality indicators targeting reductions in complications for injury admissions.

Authors:  Abakar Idriss-Hassan; Mélanie Bérubé; Amina Belcaïd; Julien Clément; Gilles Bourgeois; Christine Rizzo; Xavier Neveu; Kahina Soltana; Jaimini Thakore; Lynne Moore
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2021-05-07       Impact factor: 3.693

7.  Comparison of mortality following hospitalisation for isolated head injury in England and Wales, and Victoria, Australia.

Authors:  Belinda J Gabbe; Ronan A Lyons; Fiona E Lecky; Omar Bouamra; Maralyn Woodford; Timothy J Coats; Peter A Cameron
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-05-31       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Factors associated with recovery from 1 minute Apgar score <4 in live, singleton, term births: an analysis of Malaysian National Obstetrics Registry data 2010-2012.

Authors:  Ravichandran Jeganathan; Shamala D Karalasingam; Julia Hussein; Pascale Allotey; Daniel D Reidpath
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2017-04-08       Impact factor: 3.007

9.  The association of patient and trauma characteristics with the health-related quality of life in a Dutch trauma population.

Authors:  Amy Gunning; Mark van Heijl; Karlijn van Wessem; Luke Leenen
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2017-04-14       Impact factor: 2.953

10.  Ten year maturation period in a level-I trauma center, a cohort comparison study.

Authors:  A M K Harmsen; G F Giannakopoulos; M Terra; E S M de Lange de Klerk; F W Bloemers
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2016-09-15       Impact factor: 3.693

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.