BACKGROUND: Quality improvement, value-based care delivery, and personalized patient care depend on robust clinical, financial, and demographic data streams of neurosurgical outcomes. The neurosurgical literature lacks a comprehensive review of large national databases. OBJECTIVE: To assess the strengths and limitations of various resources for outcomes research in neurosurgery. METHODS: A review of the literature was conducted to identify surgical outcomes studies using national data sets. The databases were assessed for the availability of patient demographics and clinical variables, longitudinal follow-up of patients, strengths, and limitations. RESULTS: The number of unique patients contained within each data set ranged from thousands (Quality Outcomes Database [QOD]) to hundreds of millions (MarketScan). Databases with both clinical and financial data included PearlDiver, Premier Healthcare Database, Vizient Clinical Data Base and Resource Manager, and the National Inpatient Sample. Outcomes collected by databases included patient-reported outcomes (QOD); 30-day morbidity, readmissions, and reoperations (National Surgical Quality Improvement Program); and disease incidence and disease-specific survival (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare). The strengths of large databases included large numbers of rare pathologies and multi-institutional nationally representative sampling; the limitations of these databases included variable data veracity, variable data completeness, and missing disease-specific variables. CONCLUSION: The improvement of existing large national databases and the establishment of new registries will be crucial to the future of neurosurgical outcomes research.
BACKGROUND: Quality improvement, value-based care delivery, and personalized patient care depend on robust clinical, financial, and demographic data streams of neurosurgical outcomes. The neurosurgical literature lacks a comprehensive review of large national databases. OBJECTIVE: To assess the strengths and limitations of various resources for outcomes research in neurosurgery. METHODS: A review of the literature was conducted to identify surgical outcomes studies using national data sets. The databases were assessed for the availability of patient demographics and clinical variables, longitudinal follow-up of patients, strengths, and limitations. RESULTS: The number of unique patients contained within each data set ranged from thousands (Quality Outcomes Database [QOD]) to hundreds of millions (MarketScan). Databases with both clinical and financial data included PearlDiver, Premier Healthcare Database, Vizient Clinical Data Base and Resource Manager, and the National Inpatient Sample. Outcomes collected by databases included patient-reported outcomes (QOD); 30-day morbidity, readmissions, and reoperations (National Surgical Quality Improvement Program); and disease incidence and disease-specific survival (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare). The strengths of large databases included large numbers of rare pathologies and multi-institutional nationally representative sampling; the limitations of these databases included variable data veracity, variable data completeness, and missing disease-specific variables. CONCLUSION: The improvement of existing large national databases and the establishment of new registries will be crucial to the future of neurosurgical outcomes research.
Authors: Wenya Linda Bi; Michael A Mooney; Seungwon Yoon; Saksham Gupta; Michael T Lawton; Kaith K Almefty; C Eduardo Corrales; Ian F Dunn Journal: J Neurol Surg B Skull Base Date: 2018-07-16
Authors: Connor J Kinslow; Andrew L A Garton; Ali I Rae; Logan P Marcus; Christopher M Adams; Guy M McKhann; Michael B Sisti; E Sander Connolly; Jeffrey N Bruce; Alfred I Neugut; Adam M Sonabend; Peter Canoll; Simon K Cheng; Tony J C Wang Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2019-08-12 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Alexander G Yearley; Julian Bryan Iorgulescu; Ennio Antonio Chiocca; Pier Paolo Peruzzi; Timothy R Smith; David A Reardon; Michael A Mooney Journal: Neurooncol Adv Date: 2022-06-24
Authors: Safwan Alomari; Daniel Lubelski; Sheng-Fu L Lo; Nicholas Theodore; Timothy Witham; Daniel Sciubba; Ali Bydon Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2022-05-21 Impact factor: 2.721
Authors: Chimere O Ezuma; Yining Lu; Ayoosh Pareek; Ryan Wilbur; Aaron J Krych; Brian Forsythe; Christopher L Camp Journal: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Date: 2022-05-24
Authors: Brett E Youngerman; Evan F Joiner; Xianling Wang; Jingyan Yang; Mary R Welch; Guy M McKhann; Jason D Wright; Dawn L Hershman; Alfred I Neugut; Jeffrey N Bruce Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2019-12-13 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Blake M Hauser; Saksham Gupta; Edward Xu; Kyle Wu; Joshua D Bernstock; Melissa Chua; Ayaz M Khawaja; Timothy R Smith; Ian F Dunn; Regan W Bergmark; Wenya Linda Bi Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2020-07-11 Impact factor: 4.130