ArticleThe journal of trauma and acute care surgery2019
Is it time to measure complications from the National Trauma Data Bank? A longitudinal analysis of recent reporting trends.
Article in The journal of trauma and acute care surgery, 2019. 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.
- Use of the National Trauma Data Bank in orthopaedic trauma research: a bibliometric analysis.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2026Article
- Article
- Pediatric trauma venous thromboembolism prediction algorithm outperforms current anticoagulation prophylaxis guidelines: a pilot study.Pediatric surgery international · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPayers have approached select complications as never events, yet there is rationale that achieving a zero incidence of these events is impractical. Prior 2005 National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) analysis showed high rates (37%) of centers reporting no complications data making national estimates for determining standardized complication rates difficult to ascertain.
methodsThe 2008-2012 NTDB National Sample Program nationally weighted files were used to calculate yearly national estimates. Rates were compared in all centers and those reporting complications data. Hospital characteristics were compared using Student t test. In 2011, an other complication category was introduced; overall rates were calculated with and without this category. Yearly estimates were reported for patients receiving care within centers reporting complications data.
resultsFrom 2008-2012 NTDB, there were raw data on 3,657,884 patients. A total of 594,894 patients (16.3%) experienced one or more complications (82.7% one complication; 17.3% two or more complications). Excluding the other complication category, the overall weighted rate was 8.4% to 9.2%. Pneumonia was the most common complication (2.7-3.0%), occurring at twice the 2005 rate. The number of centers reporting no complications data dropped to 8.1% in 2011 (2008, 14.5%; 2009, 18.2%; 2010, 15.9%; 2012, 8.9%). By 2012, nearly all level I centers reported complications, whereas 46.4% of level IVs reported none (I 0.5%, II 2.7%, III 8.5%, p = 0.04). Data were reported the least frequently in nonteaching hospitals (15.8%, p = 0.007), those in the South (19.6%, p = 0.007), and those with less than 200 beds (23.6%, p = 0.005).
conclusionOverall rates of complications from 2008 to 2012 were nearly twofold higher than 2005 data. Reporting has increased, and NTDB may provide a valuable platform for establishing rational and achievable measures for specific complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and epidemiological, level IV.
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.