ArticleWorld journal of surgery2020
Outcome Measurement at a Ugandan Referral Hospital: Validation of the Mbarara Surgical Services Quality Assurance Database.
Article in World journal of surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early evaluation of the transition from an analog to an electronic surgical logbook system in Sierra Leone.BMC medical education · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFive billion people lack access to surgery. Accurate and complete data have been identified as essential to the global scale-up of perioperative care. This study retrospectively validates the Mbarara Surgical Services Quality Assurance Database (SQUAD), an electronic outcomes database at a Ugandan secondary referral hospital.
methodsSQUAD data were compared to paper records from August 2013 to January 2017. To assess data entry accuracy, two researchers independently extracted 24 patient variables from 170 charts. To assess completeness of patient capture, SQUAD entries were compared to a sample of charts returned to the Medical Records Department, and to a sample of entries in ward and operating room logbooks. Two-tailed binomial proportions with 95% CI were calculated from the comparative results of patient observations, against a predefined accuracy of 0.85-0.95.
resultsAgreement between completed validation observations from charts and SQUAD data was 91.5% (n = 3734/4080 data points). Binomial tests indicated that 15 variables had higher than 95% accuracy. A total 19 of 24 variables had ≥ 85% accuracy. The completeness of SQUAD patient capture was 98.2% (n = 167/170) of charts returned to the Medical Records Department, 97.5% (n = 198/203) of operating logbook entries, and 100% (n = 111/111) of ward logbook entries, respectively.
conclusionSQUAD closely reflects the primary surgical and anaesthetic data at a Ugandan secondary hospital. Data accuracy of key variables and completeness of population capture were comparable to those of databases in high-income countries and outperformed those of other low- and middle-income countries.
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.