ReviewDer Unfallchirurg2018
[Data content of the TraumaRegister DGU® : Results of a random sample control].
Review in Der Unfallchirurg, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- In the last 10 years, have our polytrauma patients become geriatric? The emergency trauma bay in the context of demographic change.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025Article
- [Patient consent for the TraumaRegistry DGU based on the GDPR-A challenge for the hospitals: status quo and solution strategies].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2022Article
- The impact of a qualified medical documentation assistant on trauma room management.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRegistries are becoming increasingly more important in clinical research. The TraumaRegister DGU® of the German Society for Trauma Surgery plays an excellent role with respect to the care of severely injured patients.
aimWithin the framework of this investigation the quality of data provided by this registry was to be verified. MATERIAL AND
methodsCertified hospitals participating in the TraumaNetzwerk DGU® of the German Society for Trauma Surgery are obliged to submit data of treated severely injured patients to the TraumaRegister DGU®. Participating hospitals have to undergo a re-certification process every 3 years. Within the framework of this re-audit, data from 5 out of 8 randomly chosen patient cases included in the registry are controlled and compared to the patient files of the certified hospital. In the present investigation discrepancies concerning data provided were documented and the pattern of deviation was analyzed.
resultsThe results of 1075 re-certification processes carried out in 631 hospitals including the documentation of 5409 checked patient cases from 2012-2017 were analyzed. The highest number of discrepancies detected concerned the documented time until initial CT (15.8%) and the lowest concerned the discharge site (3.2%). The majority of data sheets with discrepancies showed deviations in only one out of seven checked parameters. Interestingly, large trauma centers with a high throughput of severely injured patients showed the most deviations.
conclusionThe present investigation underlines the importance of standardized checks concerning data provided for registries in order to be able to guarantee an improvement in entering data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30242445What 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.