Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27896677›Full record

ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2017

Results of Database Studies in Spine Surgery Can Be Influenced by Missing Data.

Bryce A Basques, Ryan P McLynn, Michael P Fice, Andre M Samuel, Adam M Lukasiewicz, Daniel D Bohl, Junyoung Ahn, Kern Singh, Jonathan N Grauer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Preoperative High, as well as Low, Platelet Counts Correlate With Adverse Outcomes After Elective Total Hip Arthroplasty.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Bryce A BasquesDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
Ryan P McLynnDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine, 800 Howard Avenue, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA.
Michael P FiceDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
Andre M SamuelDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
Adam M LukasiewiczDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine, 800 Howard Avenue, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA.
Daniel D BohlDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
Junyoung AhnDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
Kern SinghDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
Jonathan N GrauerDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine, 800 Howard Avenue, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA. jonathan.grauer@yale.edu.

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNational databases are increasingly being used for research in spine surgery; however, one limitation of such databases that has received sparse mention is the frequency of missing data. Studies using these databases often do not emphasize the percentage of missing data for each variable used and do not specify how patients with missing data are incorporated into analyses. This study uses the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database to examine whether different treatments of missing data can influence the results of spine studies. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the frequency of missing data fields for demographics, medical comorbidities, preoperative laboratory values, operating room times, and length of stay recorded in ACS-NSQIP? (2) Using three common approaches to handling missing data, how frequently do those approaches agree in terms of finding particular variables to be associated with adverse events? (3) Do different approaches to handling missing data influence the outcomes and effect sizes of an analysis testing for an association with these variables with occurrence of adverse events?

methodsPatients who underwent spine surgery between 2005 and 2013 were identified from the ACS-NSQIP database. A total of 88,471 patients undergoing spine surgery were identified. The most common procedures were anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, lumbar decompression, and lumbar fusion. Demographics, comorbidities, and perioperative laboratory values were tabulated for each patient, and the percent of missing data was noted for each variable. These variables were tested for an association with "any adverse event" using three separate multivariate regressions that used the most common treatments for missing data. In the first regression, patients with any missing data were excluded. In the second regression, missing data were treated as a negative or "reference" value; for continuous variables, the mean of each variable's reference range was computed and imputed. In the third regression, any variables with > 10% rate of missing data were removed from the regression; among variables with ≤ 10% missing data, individual cases with missing values were excluded. The results of these regressions were compared to determine how the different treatments of missing data could affect the results of spine studies using the ACS-NSQIP database.

resultsOf the 88,471 patients, as many as 4441 (5%) had missing elements among demographic data, 69,184 (72%) among comorbidities, 70,892 (80%) among preoperative laboratory values, and 56,551 (64%) among operating room times. Considering the three different treatments of missing data, we found different risk factors for adverse events. Of 44 risk factors found to be associated with adverse events in any analysis, only 15 (34%) of these risk factors were common among the three regressions. The second treatment of missing data (assuming "normal" value) found the most risk factors (40) to be associated with any adverse event, whereas the first treatment (deleting patients with missing data) found the fewest associations at 20. Among the risk factors associated with any adverse event, the 10 with the greatest effect size (odds ratio) by each regression were ranked. Of the 15 variables in the top 10 for any regression, six of these were common among all three lists.

conclusionsDiffering treatments of missing data can influence the results of spine studies using the ACS-NSQIP. The current study highlights the importance of considering how such missing data are handled. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Until there are better guidelines on the best approaches to handle missing data, investigators should report how missing data were handled to increase the quality and transparency of orthopaedic database research. Readers of large database studies should note whether handling of missing data was addressed and consider potential bias with high rates or unspecified or weak methods for handling missing data.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualDecision Support TechniquesOrthopedic ProceduresProcess Assessment, Health CareComorbidityData AccuracyData CollectionData MiningHumansLength of StayLogistic ModelsMultivariate AnalysisOdds RatioOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsPredictive Value of Tests

Identifiers

PMID27896677
PMCPMC5670041

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.