Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35697872›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society2022

Trends in data quality and quality indicators 5 years after implementation of the Dutch Hip Fracture Audit.

F S Würdemann, P Krijnen, E W van Zwet, A J Arends, M J Heetveld, M C Trappenburg, J H Hegeman, I B Schipper, Dutch Hip Fracture Audit Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

F S WürdemannDepartment of Trauma Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, 2333 AA, Leiden, The Netherlands. f.wurdemann@dica.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5795-2836
P KrijnenDepartment of Trauma Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
E W van ZwetDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
A J ArendsDepartment of Geriatrics, Maasstadziekenhuis Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
M J HeetveldDepartment of Trauma Surgery, Spaarne Gasthuis, Haarlem, The Netherlands.
M C TrappenburgDepartment of Internal Medicine, Ziekenhuis Amstelland, Amstelveen, The Netherlands.
J H HegemanDepartment of Trauma Surgery, Ziekenhuisgroep Twente, Almelo, The Netherlands.
I B SchipperDepartment of Trauma Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Dutch Hip Fracture Audit Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe Dutch Hip Fracture Audit (DHFA), a nationwide hip fracture registry in the Netherlands, registers hip fracture patients and aims to improve quality of care since 2016. This study shows trends in the data quality during the first 5 years of data acquisition within the DHFA, as well as trends over time for designated quality indicators (QI).

methodsAll patients registered in the DHFA between 1-1-2016 and 31-12-2020 were included. Data quality-registry case coverage and data completeness-and baseline characteristics are reported. Five QI are analysed: Time to surgery < 48 h, assessment for osteoporosis, orthogeriatric co-management, registration of functional outcomes at three months, 30-day mortality. The independent association between QI results and report year was tested using mixed-effects logistic models and in the case of 30-day mortality adjusted for casemix.

resultsIn 2020, the case capture of the DHFA comprised 85% of the Dutch hip fracture patients, 66/68 hospitals participated. The average of missing clinical values was 7.5% in 2016 and 3.2% in 2020. The 3 months follow-up completeness was 36.2% (2016) and 46.8% (2020). The QI 'time to surgery' was consistently high, assessment for osteoporosis remained low, orthogeriatric co-management scores increased without significance, registration of functional outcomes improved significantly and 30-day mortality rates remained unchanged.

conclusionThe DHFA has successfully been implemented in the past five years. Trends show improvement on data quality. Analysis of several QI indicate points of attention. Future perspectives include lowering the burden of registration, whilst improving (registration of) hip fracture patients outcomes.

Indexed as

Hip FracturesOsteoporosisData AccuracyHumansQuality Indicators, Health CareRegistriesClinical auditingHip fracturesQuality indicatorsRegistries

Identifiers

PMID35697872
PMCPMC9712331

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.