Observational studyBMJ open2024
Assessing the quality of emergency department data for injury surveillance in Victoria, Australia: a comparative analysis of two Victorian hospital data sources.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2024. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe emergency department (ED) is pivotal in treating serious injuries, making it a valuable source for population-based injury surveillance. In Victoria, information that is relevant to injury surveillance is collected in the Victorian Emergency Minimum Dataset (VEMD). This study aims to assess the data quality of the VEMD as an injury data source by comparing it with the Victorian Admitted Episodes Dataset (VAED).
designA retrospective observational study of administrative healthcare data. SETTING AND
participantsVEMD and VAED data from July 2014 to June 2019 were compared. Including only hospitals contributing to both datasets, cases that (1) arrived at the ED and (2) were subsequently admitted, were selected.
resultsWhile the overall number of cases was similar, VAED outnumbered VEMD cases (414 630 vs 404 608), suggesting potential under-reporting of injuries in the ED. Age-related differences indicated a relative under-representation of older individuals in the VEMD. Injuries caused by falls or transport, and intentional injuries were relatively under-reported in the VEMD.
conclusionsInjury cases were more numerous in the VAED than in the VEMD even though the number is expected to be equal based on case selection. Older patients were under-represented in the VEMD; this could partly be attributed to patients being admitted for an injury after they presented to the ED with a non-injury ailment. The patterns of under-representation described in this study should be taken into account in ED-based injury incidence reporting.
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.