ArticleCardiology in the young2016
Data integrity of the Pediatric Cardiac Critical Care Consortium (PC4) clinical registry.
Article in Cardiology in the young, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
34 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Outcomes Following Pediatric Cardiac Surgery: A NEPHRON Study Analysis.Pediatric cardiology · 2026Article
- From fragmentation to integration: the implementation of Kuwait's nationwide pediatric intensive care units registry.Pediatric research · 2026Article
- Advances in interdisciplinary care for term and preterm neonates with congenital heart disease: a narrative review.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Review
- Case Ascertainment in Pediatric Heart Failure Using International Classification of Disease Clinical Modification (ICD-CM) Codes.Pediatric cardiology · 2025Article
- Critical congenital heart disease in extreme prematurity: Surgical outcomes from a specialized neonatal cardiac intensive care unit.JTCVS open · 2025Article
- Diuretic response after neonatal cardiac surgery: a report from the NEPHRON collaborative.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2024Article
- An evaluation of the outcomes associated with peritoneal catheter use in neonates undergoing cardiac surgery: A multicenter study.JTCVS open · 2024Article
- A realist synthesis of multicentre comparative audit implementation: exploring what works and in which healthcare contexts.BMJ open quality · 2024Review
- Risk Factors for Extubation Failure After Pediatric Cardiac Surgery and Impact on Outcomes: A Multicenter Analysis.Critical care explorations · 2023Article
- Article
- Regression Trees and Ensemble for Multivariate Outcomes.Sankhya. Series B. [Methodological.] · 2023Article
- Fluid Accumulation After Neonatal Congenital Cardiac Operation: Clinical Implications and Outcomes.The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2022Observational
- Characterization of "ICU-30": A Binary Composite Outcome for Neonates With Critical Congenital Heart Disease.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2022Article
- Relationship Between Gestational Age and Outcomes After Congenital Heart Surgery.The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2021Article
- Influence of Early Extubation Location on Outcomes Following Pediatric Cardiac Surgery.Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies · 2020Article
- Intensive Care Unit and Acute Care Unit Length of Stay After Congenital Heart Surgery.The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2020Article
- Predicting and Surviving Prolonged Critical Illness After Congenital Heart Surgery.Critical care medicine · 2020Article
- Epidemiology and Outcomes of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure in Children.Circulation. Heart failure · 2020Article
- Improvement in Pediatric Cardiac Surgical Outcomes Through Interhospital Collaboration.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2019Article
- The Quest for Precision Medicine: Unmeasured Patient Factors and Mortality After Congenital Heart Surgery.The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical databases in congenital and paediatric cardiac care provide a foundation for quality improvement, research, policy evaluations and public reporting. Structured audits verifying data integrity allow database users to be confident in these endeavours. We report on the initial audit of the Pediatric Cardiac Critical Care Consortium (PC4) clinical registry. Materials and methods Participants reviewed the entire registry to determine key fields for audit, and defined major and minor discrepancies for the audited variables. In-person audits at the eight initial participating centres were conducted during a 12-month period. The data coordinating centre randomly selected intensive care encounters for review at each site. The audit consisted of source data verification and blinded chart abstraction, comparing findings by the auditors with those entered in the database. We also assessed completeness and timeliness of case submission. Quantitative evaluation of completeness, accuracy, and timeliness of case submission is reported.
resultsWe audited 434 encounters and 29,476 data fields. The aggregate overall accuracy was 99.1%, and the major discrepancy rate was 0.62%. Across hospitals, the overall accuracy ranged from 96.3 to 99.5%, and the major discrepancy rate ranged from 0.3 to 0.9%; seven of the eight hospitals submitted >90% of cases within 1 month of hospital discharge. There was no evidence for selective case omission.
conclusionsBased on a rigorous audit process, data submitted to the PC4 clinical registry appear complete, accurate, and timely. The collaborative will maintain ongoing efforts to verify the integrity of the data to promote science that advances quality improvement efforts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.