Literature DB >> 29623415

What have we learned in minimally invasive colorectal surgery from NSQIP and NIS large databases? A systematic review.

Gabriela Batista Rodríguez1,2, Andrea Balla3,4, Santiago Corradetti3, Carmen Martinez3, Pilar Hernández3, Jesús Bollo3, Eduard M Targarona3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: "Big data" refers to large amount of dataset. Those large databases are useful in many areas, including healthcare. The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) and the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) are big databases that were developed in the USA in order to record surgical outcomes. The aim of the present systematic review is to evaluate the type and clinical impact of the information retrieved through NISQP and NIS big database articles focused on laparoscopic colorectal surgery.
METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using The Meta-Analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. The research was carried out on PubMed database and revealed 350 published papers. Outcomes of articles in which laparoscopic colorectal surgery was the primary aim were analyzed.
RESULTS: Fifty-five studies, published between 2007 and February 2017, were included. Articles included were categorized in groups according to the main topic as: outcomes related to surgical technique comparisons, morbidity and perioperatory results, specific disease-related outcomes, sociodemographic disparities, and academic training impact.
CONCLUSIONS: NSQIP and NIS databases are just the tip of the iceberg for the potential application of Big Data technology and analysis in MIS. Information obtained through big data is useful and could be considered as external validation in those situations where a significant evidence-based medicine exists; also, those databases establish benchmarks to measure the quality of patient care. Data retrieved helps to inform decision-making and improve healthcare delivery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Big data; Laparoscopic colorectal surgery; NIS; NSQIP; Systematic literature review

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29623415     DOI: 10.1007/s00384-018-3036-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis        ISSN: 0179-1958            Impact factor:   2.571


  80 in total

1.  Surgical site infection rates in laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery.

Authors:  Rahim Aimaq; Gabriel Akopian; Howard S Kaufman
Journal:  Am Surg       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 0.688

2.  Association of hospital participation in a surgical outcomes monitoring program with inpatient complications and mortality.

Authors:  David A Etzioni; Nabil Wasif; Amylou C Dueck; Robert R Cima; Samuel F Hohmann; James M Naessens; Amit K Mathur; Elizabeth B Habermann
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-02-03       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Colectomy performance improvement within NSQIP 2005-2008.

Authors:  Deepak K Ozhathil; YouFu Li; Jillian K Smith; Elan Witkowski; Elizaveta Ragulin Coyne; Karim Alavi; Jennifer F Tseng; Shimul A Shah
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2011-07-23       Impact factor: 2.192

Review 4.  Big data in medical science--a biostatistical view.

Authors:  Harald Binder; Maria Blettner
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2015-02-27       Impact factor: 5.594

5.  Impact of operative duration on postoperative pulmonary complications in laparoscopic versus open colectomy.

Authors:  Rachel M Owen; Sebastian D Perez; Nathan Lytle; Ankit Patel; S S Davis; Edward Lin; John F Sweeney
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-04-13       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Do the advantages of a minimally invasive approach remain in complex colorectal procedures? A nationwide comparison.

Authors:  Andrew T Schlussel; Michael B Lustik; Eric K Johnson; Justin A Maykel; Brad J Champagne; Joel E Goldberg; Scott R Steele
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 4.585

7.  Short-term outcomes after laparoscopic-assisted proctectomy for rectal cancer: results from the ACS NSQIP.

Authors:  David Yu Greenblatt; Victoria Rajamanickam; Andrew J Pugely; Charles P Heise; Eugene F Foley; Gregory D Kennedy
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2011-03-16       Impact factor: 6.113

8.  Laparoscopic colectomy significantly decreases length of stay compared with open operation.

Authors:  Amalia J Stefanou; Craig A Reickert; Vic Velanovich; Anthony Falvo; Ilan Rubinfeld
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2011-07-27       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Surgical management of complicated diverticulitis: a comparison of the laparoscopic and open approaches.

Authors:  Tafari Mbadiwe; Augustine C Obirieze; Edward E Cornwell; Patricia Turner; Terrence M Fullum
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 6.113

10.  The impact of laparoscopic versus open approach on reoperation rate after segmental colectomy: a propensity analysis.

Authors:  Paul J Speicher; Brian R Englum; Betty Jiang; Ricardo Pietrobon; Christopher R Mantyh; John Migaly
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2013-07-30       Impact factor: 3.452

View more
  2 in total

1.  Do Diagnostic and Procedure Codes Within Population-Based, Administrative Datasets Accurately Identify Patients with Rectal Cancer?

Authors:  Reilly P Musselman; Tara Gomes; Deanna M Rothwell; Rebecca C Auer; Husein Moloo; Robin P Boushey; Carl van Walraven
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2018-12-03       Impact factor: 3.452

2.  Predictors and Consequences of Unplanned Conversion to Open During Robotic Colectomy: An ACS-NSQIP Database Analysis.

Authors:  Andrew N Mueller; John D Vossler; Nicholas H Yim; Gregory J Harbison; Kenric M Murayama
Journal:  Hawaii J Health Soc Welf       Date:  2021-11
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.