Gowri Shivasabesan1,2,3, Gerard M O'Reilly4,5,6, Joseph Mathew4,5,7,8, Mark C Fitzgerald5,7,8, Amit Gupta9, Nobhojit Roy6,10, Manjul Joshipura11, Naveen Sharma12, Peter Cameron4,5,6, Madonna Fahey5,13, Teresa Howard5,8, Zoe Cheung5, Vineet Kumar14, Bhavesh Jarwani15, Kapil Dev Soni9, Pankaj Patel15, Advait Thakor15, Mahesh Misra16, Russell L Gruen17, Biswadev Mitra4,5,6. 1. Emergency and Trauma Centre, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. gowri.shiva14@gmail.com. 2. National Trauma Research Institute, The Alfred Hospital, 85-89 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia. gowri.shiva14@gmail.com. 3. School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. gowri.shiva14@gmail.com. 4. Emergency and Trauma Centre, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. 5. National Trauma Research Institute, The Alfred Hospital, 85-89 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia. 6. School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. 7. Trauma Service, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. 8. Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. 9. Division of Trauma Surgery and Critical Care, All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi, India. 10. WHO Collaborating Centre for Research on Surgical Care Delivery in LMICs, Surgical Unit, BARC Hospital (Govt. of India), Mumbai, India. 11. Academy of Traumatology, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. 12. Department of Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, India. 13. Tasmanian Health Service, Hobart, Australia. 14. Lokmanya Tilak General Hospital and Municipal Medical College, Mumbai, India. 15. Smt. NHL Municipal Medical College, Ahmedabad, India. 16. Mahatma Gandhi University of Medical Sciences and Technology, Jaipur, India. 17. College of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The completeness of a trauma registry's data is essential for its valid use. This study aimed to evaluate the extent of missing data in a new multicentre trauma registry in India and to assess the association between data completeness and potential predictors of missing data, particularly mortality. METHODS: The proportion of missing data for variables among all adults was determined from data collected from 19 April 2016 to 30 April 2017. In-hospital physiological data were defined as missing if any of initial systolic blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, or Glasgow Coma Scale were missing. Univariable logistic regression and multivariable logistic regression, using manual stepwise selection, were used to investigate the association between mortality (and other potential predictors) and missing physiological data. RESULTS: Data on the 4466 trauma patients in the registry were analysed. Out of 59 variables, most (n = 51; 86.4%) were missing less than 20% of observations. There were 808 (18.1%) patients missing at least one of the first in-hospital physiological observations. Hospital death was associated with missing in-hospital physiological data (adjusted OR 1.4; 95% CI 1.02-2.01; p = 0.04). Other significant associations with missing data were: patient arrival time out of hours, hospital of care, 'other' place of injury, and specific injury mechanisms. Assault/homicide injury intent and occurrence of chest X-ray were associated with not missing any of first in-hospital physiological variables. CONCLUSION: Most variables were well collected. Hospital death, a proxy for more severe injury, was associated with missing first in-hospital physiological observations. This remains an important limitation for trauma registries.
BACKGROUND: The completeness of a trauma registry's data is essential for its valid use. This study aimed to evaluate the extent of missing data in a new multicentre trauma registry in India and to assess the association between data completeness and potential predictors of missing data, particularly mortality. METHODS: The proportion of missing data for variables among all adults was determined from data collected from 19 April 2016 to 30 April 2017. In-hospital physiological data were defined as missing if any of initial systolic blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, or Glasgow Coma Scale were missing. Univariable logistic regression and multivariable logistic regression, using manual stepwise selection, were used to investigate the association between mortality (and other potential predictors) and missing physiological data. RESULTS: Data on the 4466 traumapatients in the registry were analysed. Out of 59 variables, most (n = 51; 86.4%) were missing less than 20% of observations. There were 808 (18.1%) patients missing at least one of the first in-hospital physiological observations. Hospital death was associated with missing in-hospital physiological data (adjusted OR 1.4; 95% CI 1.02-2.01; p = 0.04). Other significant associations with missing data were: patient arrival time out of hours, hospital of care, 'other' place of injury, and specific injury mechanisms. Assault/homicide injury intent and occurrence of chest X-ray were associated with not missing any of first in-hospital physiological variables. CONCLUSION: Most variables were well collected. Hospital death, a proxy for more severe injury, was associated with missing first in-hospital physiological observations. This remains an important limitation for trauma registries.
Authors: Anneliese Synnot; Adrian Karlsson; Lisa Brichko; Melissa Chee; Mark Fitzgerald; Mahesh C Misra; Teresa Howard; Joseph Mathew; Thomas Rotter; Michelle Fiander; Russell L Gruen; Amit Gupta; Satish Dharap; Madonna Fahey; Michael Stephenson; Gerard O'Reilly; Peter Cameron; Biswadev Mitra Journal: J Evid Based Med Date: 2017-08
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