Gowri Shivasabesan1, Biswadev Mitra2, Gerard M O'Reilly2. 1. Emergency & Trauma Centre, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; National Trauma Research Institute, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Epidemiology & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: gshi13@student.monash.edu. 2. Emergency & Trauma Centre, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; National Trauma Research Institute, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Epidemiology & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Trauma registries play an integral role in trauma systems but their valid use hinges on data quality. The aim of this study was to determine, among contemporary publications using trauma registry data, the level of reporting of data completeness and the methods used to deal with missing data. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted of all trauma registry-based manuscripts published from 01 January 2015 to current date (17 March 2017). Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL using relevant subject headings and keywords. Included manuscripts were evaluated based on previously published recommendations regarding the reporting and discussion of missing data. Manuscripts were graded on their degree of characterization of such observations. In addition, the methods used to manage missing data were examined. RESULTS: There were 539 manuscripts that met inclusion criteria. Among these, 208 (38.6%) manuscripts did not mention data completeness and 88 (16.3%) mentioned missing data but did not quantify the extent. Only a handful (n = 26; 4.8%) quantified the 'missingness' of all variables. Most articles (n = 477; 88.5%) contained no details such as a comparison between patient characteristics in cohorts with and without missing data. Of the 331 articles which made at least some mention of data completeness, the method of managing missing data was unknown in 34 (10.3%). When method(s) to handle missing data were identified, 234 (78.8%) manuscripts used complete case analysis only, 18 (6.1%) used multiple imputation only and 34 (11.4%) used a combination of these. CONCLUSION: Most manuscripts using trauma registry data did not quantify the extent of missing data for any variables and contained minimal discussion regarding missingness. Out of the studies which identified a method of managing missing data, most used complete case analysis, a method that may bias results. The lack of standardization in the reporting and management of missing data questions the validity of conclusions from research based on trauma registry data.
BACKGROUND:Trauma registries play an integral role in trauma systems but their valid use hinges on data quality. The aim of this study was to determine, among contemporary publications using trauma registry data, the level of reporting of data completeness and the methods used to deal with missing data. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted of all trauma registry-based manuscripts published from 01 January 2015 to current date (17 March 2017). Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL using relevant subject headings and keywords. Included manuscripts were evaluated based on previously published recommendations regarding the reporting and discussion of missing data. Manuscripts were graded on their degree of characterization of such observations. In addition, the methods used to manage missing data were examined. RESULTS: There were 539 manuscripts that met inclusion criteria. Among these, 208 (38.6%) manuscripts did not mention data completeness and 88 (16.3%) mentioned missing data but did not quantify the extent. Only a handful (n = 26; 4.8%) quantified the 'missingness' of all variables. Most articles (n = 477; 88.5%) contained no details such as a comparison between patient characteristics in cohorts with and without missing data. Of the 331 articles which made at least some mention of data completeness, the method of managing missing data was unknown in 34 (10.3%). When method(s) to handle missing data were identified, 234 (78.8%) manuscripts used complete case analysis only, 18 (6.1%) used multiple imputation only and 34 (11.4%) used a combination of these. CONCLUSION: Most manuscripts using trauma registry data did not quantify the extent of missing data for any variables and contained minimal discussion regarding missingness. Out of the studies which identified a method of managing missing data, most used complete case analysis, a method that may bias results. The lack of standardization in the reporting and management of missing data questions the validity of conclusions from research based on trauma registry data.
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
Authors: Elizabeth Miranda; Lotta Velin; Faustin Ntirenganya; Robert Riviello; Francoise Mukagaju; Ian Shyaka; Yves Nezerwa; Laura Pompermaier Journal: J Burn Care Res Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 1.845
Authors: Lara A Kahale; Assem M Khamis; Batoul Diab; Yaping Chang; Luciane Cruz Lopes; Arnav Agarwal; Ling Li; Reem A Mustafa; Serge Koujanian; Reem Waziry; Jason W Busse; Abeer Dakik; Lotty Hooft; Gordon H Guyatt; Rob J P M Scholten; Elie A Akl Journal: Clin Epidemiol Date: 2020-05-27 Impact factor: 4.790
Authors: Jane E Ford; Abdulrahman S Alqahtani; Shatha A A Abuzinada; Peter A Cameron; Mark C Fitzgerald; Ahmed S Alenizi; Dina Farjou Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-01-06 Impact factor: 2.655