ArticleJournal of the American College of Surgeons2019
Whose Benchmark Is Right? Validating Venous Thromboembolism Events Between Trauma Registries and Hospital Administrative Databases.
Article in Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Epidural catheters are associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism in trauma.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2020Trial
- Validating adverse events in administrative healthcare data in ireland: a retrospective chart review study.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- A scoping review of the methodological approaches used in retrospective chart reviews to validate adverse event rates in administrative data.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2024Article
- Characteristics of Deep Venous Thrombosis in Isolated Lower Extremity Fractures and Unsolved Problems in Guidelines: A Review of Recent Literature.Orthopaedic surgery · 2022Review
- Comparative Effectiveness of Enoxaparin vs Dalteparin for Thromboprophylaxis After Traumatic Injury.Chest · 2018Article
- Safety Comparison of Monotherapy Aspirin to Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Following Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVenous thromboembolism (VTE) events are tracked in trauma registries and by administrative data sets. Both databases are used to assess outcomes, despite having varying processes for data capture. STUDY
designThis study was performed at an urban, university-based, Level I trauma center from 2004 to 2014. Retrospective review of the trauma registry and the hospital's administrative database was performed querying for all VTEs. Each VTE was then validated through manual chart review. Confirmed events were those with radiographic evidence of VTE by ultrasound, CT, and/or ventilation-perfusion scan. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were calculated and compared between databases.
resultsThere were 19,353 trauma patients admitted during the study period; 656 VTEs were identified in the registry and 890 were identified via administrative data; 527 potential events were identified by both databases; 129 events were only in registry; and 363 were only found in the administrative database. We confirmed 636 of 656 events in registry (positive predictive value, 97%; 95% CI, 95.6% to 98.3%) vs 815 of 890 events in administrative data (positive predictive value, 91.6%; 95% CI, 89.75% to 93.4%; p < 0.001). Sensitivity was higher for administrative (87.2% vs 68.0%; p < 0.001), as 299 confirmed VTE events were not in the registry. Differences between the 2 databases were diminished when the analysis excluded untreated events and those present on admission. Twenty-three percent of validated deep vein thrombosis events in the registry were upper extremity events.
conclusionsThe trauma registry showed higher specificity and lower sensitivity compared with administrative data. The low false-positive rate of the trauma registry supports its validity in VTE outcomes research. Additional investigation is needed to evaluate the relevance of the variable sensitivity, likely due to definitional differences. Supplementation of trauma registry data with administrative data can strengthen its completeness.
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.