ArticleArchives of physical medicine and rehabilitation2019
Challenges to the Standardization of Trauma Data Collection in Burn, Traumatic Brain Injury, Spinal Cord Injury, and Other Trauma Populations: A Call for Common Data Elements for Acute and Longitudinal Trauma Databases.
Article in Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neuroprognostication After Cardiac Arrest: From Test-Centered Prediction to Ethically Constrained, Longitudinal Decision-Making.Neurocritical care · 2026Article
- Adopting common data elements (CDEs) for the National Trauma Research Repository (NTRR): the results of an outcome, outcome measures, and rehabilitation Delphi Survey.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2026Article
- A review on the utility of sensitivity analysis in trauma research: Methods and challenges from recent trauma studies.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025Review
- Evaluating Gulf Cooperation Council Trauma Care Infrastructure: A Scoping Review of Key Components and Gaps.World journal of surgery · 2025Article
- Measurement of Long-Term, Quality of Life Outcomes in Injury Databases.The Journal of surgical research · 2025Article
- Prospective Harmonization, Common Data Elements, and Sharing Strategies for Multicenter Pre-Clinical Traumatic Brain Injury Research in the Translational Outcomes Project in Neurotrauma Consortium.Journal of neurotrauma · 2025Article
- Robust Automated Harmonization of Heterogeneous Data Through Ensemble Machine Learning: Algorithm Development and Validation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- The Australian Traumatic Brain Injury Initiative: Systematic Review of Clinical Factors Associated with Outcomes in People with Moderate-Severe Traumatic Brain Injury.Neurotrauma reports · 2024Review
- Methods Used in the Development of Common Data Models for Health Data: Scoping Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2023Article
- Identifying Datasets for Cross-Study Analysis in dbGaP using PhenX.Scientific data · 2022Article
- Common Data Elements for Meaningful Stroke Documentation in Routine Care and Clinical Research: Retrospective Data Analysis.JMIR medical informatics · 2021Article
- The Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems National Database: A Review of Published Research.Neurotrauma reports · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveCommon data elements (CDEs) promote data sharing, standardization, and uniform data collection, which facilitate meta-analyses and comparisons of studies. Currently, there is no set of CDEs for all trauma populations, but their creation would allow researchers to leverage existing databases to maximize research on trauma outcomes. The purpose of this study is to assess the extent of common data collection among 5 trauma databases.
designThe data dictionaries of 5 trauma databases were examined to determine the extent of common data collection. Databases included 2 acute care databases (American Burn Association's National Burn Data Standard and American College of Surgeons' National Trauma Data Standard) and 3 longitudinal trauma databases (Burn, Traumatic Brain Injury, Spinal Cord Injury Model System National Databases). Data elements and data values were compared across the databases. Quantitative and qualitative variations in the data were identified to highlight meaningful differences between datasets.
settingN/A.
participantsN/A.
interventionsN/A.
main outcome measuresN/A.
resultsOf the 30 data elements examined, 14 (47%) were present in all 5 databases. Another 9 (30%) elements were present in 4 of the 5 databases. The number of elements present in each database ranged from 23 (77%) to 26 (86%). There were inconsistencies in the data values across the databases. Twelve of the 14 data elements present in all 5 databases exhibited differences in data values.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates inconsistencies in the documentation of data elements in 5 common trauma databases. These discrepancies are a barrier to database harmonization and to maximizing the use of these databases through linking, pooling, and comparing data. A collaborative effort is required to develop a standardized set of elements for trauma research.
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.