ArticleBMJ open2023
Exploring the similarities and differences of variables collected by burn registers globally: protocol for a data dictionary review study.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionBurn registers can provide high-quality clinical data that can be used for surveillance, research, planning service provision and clinical quality assessment. Many countrywide and intercountry burn registers now exist. The variables collected by burn registers are not standardised internationally. Few international burn register data comparisons are completed beyond basic morbidity and mortality statistics. Data comparisons across registers require analysis of homogenous variables. Little work has been done to understand whether burn registers have sufficiently similar variables to enable useful comparisons. The aim of this project is to compare the variables collected in countrywide and intercountry burn registers internationally to understand their similarities and differences. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Burn register custodians will be invited to participate in the study and to share their register data dictionaries. Study objectives are to compare patient inclusion and exclusion criteria of each participating burn register; determine which variables are collected by each register, and if variables are required or optional, identify common variable themes; and compare a sample of variables to understand how they are defined and measured. All variable names will be extracted from each register and common themes will be identified. Detailed information will be extracted for a sample of variables to give a deeper insight into similarities and differences between registers. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No patient data will be used in this project. Permission to use each register's data dictionary will be sought from respective register custodians. Results will be presented at international meetings and published in open access journals. These results will be of interest to register custodians and researchers wishing to explore international data comparisons, and countries wishing to establish their own burn register.
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.