ArticleBMJ open quality2019
Data quality audit of a clinical quality registry: a generic framework and case study of the Australian and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing routine health information quality and associated factors among health facilities in the eastern zone of Tigray, Ethiopia, 2019/20: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Article
- Effect of Nationwide Postoperative Rehabilitation at Home Program after Lower Extremity Surgeries in Older and Younger People.Annals of geriatric medicine and research · 2025Article
- Variation in care and outcomes for people after hip fracture with and without cognitive impairment; results from the Australian and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry.The journal of nutrition, health & aging · 2024Article
- A deep learning approach using an ensemble model to autocreate an image-based hip fracture registry.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2023Article
- Quality registry improves the data of chronic ulcers: Validation of Tampere Wound Registry.International wound journal · 2023Article
- Pilot testing of the International Council of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation Registry.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2023Article
- Data quality validation of the Spanish Incisional Hernia Surgery Registry (EVEREG): pilot study.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2023Article
- The Swedish Perioperative Register: Description, validation of data mapping and utility.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2023Article
- Trends in data quality and quality indicators 5 years after implementation of the Dutch Hip Fracture Audit.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2022Article
- The influence of weight-bearing status on post-operative mobility and outcomes in geriatric hip fracture.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2022Observational
- Changing trends in hip fracture epidemiology in the Republic of Ireland: a follow-up study.Archives of osteoporosis · 2022Article
- Increased Geriatric Treatment Frequency Improves Mobility and Secondary Fracture Prevention in Older Adult Hip Fracture Patients-An Observational Cohort Study of 23,828 Patients from the Registry for Geriatric Trauma (ATR-DGU).Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Effectiveness of data auditing as a tool to reinforce good research data management (RDM) practice: a Singapore study.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- The protocol of a clinical quality registry for dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI): the Australian dementia network (ADNeT) Registry.BMC geriatrics · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe value of a clinical quality registry is contingent on the quality of its data. This study aims to pilot methodology for data quality audits of the Australian and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry, a clinical quality registry of hip fracture clinical care and secondary fracture prevention.
methodsA data quality audit was performed by independently replicating the data collection and entry process for 163 randomly selected patient records from three contributing hospitals, and then comparing the replicated data set to the registry data set. Data agreement, as a proxy indicator of data accuracy, and data completeness were assessed.
resultsAn overall data agreement of 82.3% and overall data completeness of 95.6% were found, reflecting a moderate level of data accuracy and a very high level of data completeness. Half of all data disagreements were caused by information discrepancies, a quarter by missing discrepancies and a quarter by time, date and number discrepancies. Transcription discrepancies only accounted for 1 in every 50 data disagreements. The sources of inaccurate and incomplete data have been identified with the intention of implementing data quality improvement.
conclusionsRegular audits of data abstraction are necessary to improve data quality, assure data validity and reliability and guarantee the integrity and credibility of registry outputs. A generic framework and model for data quality audits of clinical quality registries is proposed, consisting of a three-step data abstraction audit, registry coverage audit and four-step data quality improvement process. Factors to consider for data abstraction audits include: central, remote or local implementation; single-stage or multistage random sampling; absolute, proportional, combination or alternative sample size calculation; data quality indicators; regular or ad hoc frequency; and qualitative assessment.
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.