ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2020
A Comparison of Common Plastic Surgery Operations Using the NSQIP and TOPS Databases.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Module Creation Within the TOPS Registry: An Opportunity for Longitudinal Collection of Procedure-specific Clinical Outcomes.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Nationwide analysis of plastic and reconstructive procedural volume in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic.Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Both the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) and the American Society of Plastic Surgeons Tracking Operations and Outcomes for Plastic Surgeons (TOPS) databases track 30-day outcomes.
methodsUsing the 2008-2016 TOPS and NSQIP databases, we compared patient characteristics and postoperative outcomes for 5 common plastic surgery procedures. A weighted TOPS population was used to mirror the NSQIP population in clinical and demographic characteristics to compare postoperative outcomes.
resultsWe identified 154,181 cases. Compared with NSQIP patients, TOPS patients were more likely to be younger (47.9 versus 50.0 years), have American Society of Anesthesiologists class I-II (92.1% versus 74.6%), be outpatient (66.0% versus 49.3%), and be smokers (18.7% versus 11.7%). TOPS had extensive missing data: body mass index (40.6%), American Society of Anesthesiologists class (34.9%), diabetes (39.3%), and smoking status (37.2%). NSQIP was missing <1% of all shared categories except race (15.6%). The entire TOPS cohort versus only TOPS patients without missing data had higher rates of dehiscence (5.1% versus 3.5%) and infection (2.1% versus 1.7%). TOPS versus NSQIP patients had higher dehiscence rates (5.1% versus 1.0%) but lower rates of return to the operating room (3.1% versus 6.6%), infection (2.1% versus 3.0%), and medical complications (0.3% versus 2.2%). Nonweighted and weighted TOPS cohorts had similar 30-day outcomes.
conclusionsNSQIP and TOPS populations are different in characteristics and outcomes, likely due to differences in collection methodology and the types physicians using the databases. The strengths of each dataset can be used together for research and quality improvement.
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.