Laura C Simko1, Liang Chen2, Dagmar Amtmann3, Nicole Gibran4, David Herndon5, Karen Kowalske6, A Cate Miller7, Eileen Bulger4, Ryan Friedman1, Audrey Wolfe1, Kevin K Chung8, Michael Mosier9, James Jeng10, Joseph Giacino1, Ross Zafonte1, Lewis E Kazis11, Jeffrey C Schneider1, Colleen M Ryan12. 1. Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 2. Massachusetts General Hospital, Shriners Hospitals for Children-Boston, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 3. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 4. Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 5. University of Texas Medical Branch, Shriners Hospitals for Children-Galveston, Galveston, TX. 6. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX. 7. The National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research, Administration for Community Living, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC. 8. Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Brooke Army Medical Center, Houston, TX. 9. The Oregon Clinic, Portland, OR. 10. Mt. Sinai Beth Israel, Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY. 11. Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA. 12. Massachusetts General Hospital, Shriners Hospitals for Children-Boston, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. Electronic address: cryan@mgh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
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. 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. 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. 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.
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. 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. 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. 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.
Authors: F Biering-Sørensen; S Alai; K Anderson; S Charlifue; Y Chen; M DeVivo; A E Flanders; L Jones; N Kleitman; A Lans; V K Noonan; J Odenkirchen; J Steeves; K Tansey; E Widerström-Noga; L B Jakeman Journal: Spinal Cord Date: 2015-02-10 Impact factor: 2.772
Authors: Elizabeth J Corwin; Shirley M Moore; Andrea Plotsky; Margaret M Heitkemper; Susan G Dorsey; Drenna Waldrop-Valverde; Donald E Bailey; Sharron L Docherty; Joanne D Whitney; Carol M Musil; Cynthia M Dougherty; Donna J McCloskey; Joan K Austin; Patricia A Grady Journal: J Nurs Scholarsh Date: 2017-02-23 Impact factor: 3.176
Authors: Danielle C Lavallee; Kate E Chenok; Rebecca M Love; Carolyn Petersen; Erin Holve; Courtney D Segal; Patricia D Franklin Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Philipp Bruland; Mark McGilchrist; Eric Zapletal; Dionisio Acosta; Johann Proeve; Scott Askin; Thomas Ganslandt; Justin Doods; Martin Dugas Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2016-11-22 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Christian Ohmann; Rita Banzi; Steve Canham; Serena Battaglia; Mihaela Matei; Christopher Ariyo; Lauren Becnel; Barbara Bierer; Sarion Bowers; Luca Clivio; Monica Dias; Christiane Druml; Hélène Faure; Martin Fenner; Jose Galvez; Davina Ghersi; Christian Gluud; Trish Groves; Paul Houston; Ghassan Karam; Dipak Kalra; Rachel L Knowles; Karmela Krleža-Jerić; Christine Kubiak; Wolfgang Kuchinke; Rebecca Kush; Ari Lukkarinen; Pedro Silverio Marques; Andrew Newbigging; Jennifer O'Callaghan; Philippe Ravaud; Irene Schlünder; Daniel Shanahan; Helmut Sitter; Dylan Spalding; Catrin Tudur-Smith; Peter van Reusel; Evert-Ben van Veen; Gerben Rienk Visser; Julia Wilson; Jacques Demotes-Mainard Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Huaqin Pan; Vesselina Bakalov; Lisa Cox; Michelle L Engle; Stephen W Erickson; Michael Feolo; Yuelong Guo; Wayne Huggins; Stephen Hwang; Masato Kimura; Michelle Krzyzanowski; Josh Levy; Michael Phillips; Ying Qin; David Williams; Erin M Ramos; Carol M Hamilton Journal: Sci Data Date: 2022-09-01 Impact factor: 8.501