ArticleActa orthopaedica2025
An algorithm for identifying causes of reoperations after orthopedic fracture surgery in health administrative data: a diagnostic accuracy study using the Danish National Patient Register.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeDisease- or procedure-specific registers offer valuable information but are costly and often inaccurate regarding outcome measures. Alternatively, automatically collected data from administrative systems could be a solution, given their high completeness. Our primary aim was to validate a method for identifying secondary surgical procedures (reoperations) in the Danish National Patient Register (DNPR) within the first year following primary fracture surgery. The secondary aim was to evaluate the accuracy of the diagnosis and procedure codes used to determine the causes of these reoperations. Finally, we developed algorithms to enhance precision in identifying the reasons for reoperations.
methodsIn a national cohort of 11,551 patients with primary fracture surgery, reoperations were identified through subsequent surgical procedure codes in the DNPR. Each patient record was reviewed to confirm the reoperations and causes. To improve accuracy, a stepwise algorithm was developed for each cause.
resultsWe identified 2,347 possible reoperations; 2,212 were validated as true reoperations by review of patient record, i.e., a 94% positive predictive value (PPV). However, the coding for the causes of these reoperations was inaccurate. Our algorithm identified major reoperations with a sensitivity/PPV of 89/77%, minor reoperations 99%/89%, infections 77/85%, nonunion 82/56%, early re-osteosynthesis 90/75%, and secondary arthroplasties 95/87%.
conclusionWhile the overall reported reoperations in the DNPR had a high PPV, the predefined diagnosis and procedure codes alone were not sufficient to accurately determine the causes of these reoperations. An algorithm was developed for this purpose, yielding acceptable results for all causes except nonunion.
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.