ArticleJournal of registry management2024
Survey of Satisfaction and Utility of an Application to Find Inconsistencies in Trauma Registry Data.
Article in Journal of registry management, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Data quality is essential for trauma registries, but few tools have been developed to maximize it. The author's center created a new application to automatically identify >500 logic errors in registry data and produce individualized data quality reports for staff. Objective metrics indicated the application is effective, but staff perceptions were unknown. The aim of this project was to assess registry staff satisfaction with and perceived usefulness of the new application. Methods: Anonymous cross-sectional online survey with 5-point Likert scales and free-text responses. Results: Of 10 eligible staff members who use the new application, 8 responded to the survey. Confidence in data accuracy before the new application was generally low but unanimously higher after implementation (8/8; 95% CI, 5/8-8/8). Respondents found the application at least somewhat helpful overall (6/6; 95% CI, 3/6-6/6; 2 nonresponses), with 5/6 finding it very helpful. Respondents were at least somewhat satisfied with the new application (8/8; 95% CI, 5/8-8/8), with 4/8 being very satisfied. There was minimal negative feedback other than the new process being initially overwhelming. Conclusions: Respondents found the new application to be beneficial in several ways, including indirectly. Additional research is needed to be able to generalize these single center findings and determine best practices for data validation, but software-based approaches to augment more common data validation processes may be a beneficial and welcomed job aid for registry staff.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39184204PMC11343437What 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.