Influence of the national trauma data bank on the study of trauma outcomes: Is it time to set research best practices to further enhance its impact?

Adil H. Haider, Taimur Saleem, Jeffrey J. Leow, Cassandra V. Villegas, Mehreen Kisat, Eric B. Schneider, Elliott Haut, Kent A Stevens, Edward E. Cornwell, Ellen J Mackenzie, David Thomas Efron

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Risk-adjusted analyses are critical in evaluating trauma outcomes. The National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) is a statistically robust registry that allows such analyses; however, analytical techniques are not yet standardized. In this study, we examined peer-reviewed manuscripts published using NTDB data, with particular attention to characteristics strongly associated with trauma outcomes. Our objective was to determine if there are substantial variations in the methodology and quality of risk-adjusted analyses and therefore, whether development of best practices for risk-adjusted analyses is warranted. Study Design: A database of all studies using NTDB data published through December 2010 was created by searching PubMed and Embase. Studies with multivariate risk-adjusted analyses were examined for their central question, main outcomes measures, analytical techniques, covariates in adjusted analyses, and handling of missing data. Results: Of 286 NTDB publications, 122 performed a multivariable adjusted analysis. These studies focused on clinical outcomes (51 studies), public health policy or injury prevention (30), quality (16), disparities (15), trauma center designation (6), or scoring systems (4). Mortality was the main outcome in 98 of these studies. There were considerable differences in the covariates used for case adjustment. The 3 covariates most frequently controlled for were age (95%), Injury Severity Score (85%), and sex (78%). Up to 43% of studies did not control for the 5 basic covariates necessary to conduct a risk-adjusted analysis of trauma mortality. Less than 10% of studies used clustering to adjust for facility differences or imputation to handle missing data. Conclusions: There is significant variability in how risk-adjusted analyses using data from the NTDB are performed. Best practices are needed to further improve the quality of research from the NTDB.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)756-768
Number of pages13
JournalJournal of the American College of Surgeons
Volume214
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2012

Fingerprint

Practice Guidelines
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Databases
Wounds and Injuries
Research
Injury Severity Score
Manuscripts
Mortality
Trauma Centers
Public Policy
Health Policy
PubMed
Cluster Analysis
Registries
Publications
Public Health

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Influence of the national trauma data bank on the study of trauma outcomes : Is it time to set research best practices to further enhance its impact? / Haider, Adil H.; Saleem, Taimur; Leow, Jeffrey J.; Villegas, Cassandra V.; Kisat, Mehreen; Schneider, Eric B.; Haut, Elliott; Stevens, Kent A; Cornwell, Edward E.; Mackenzie, Ellen J; Efron, David Thomas.

In: Journal of the American College of Surgeons, Vol. 214, No. 5, 05.2012, p. 756-768.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Haider, Adil H. ; Saleem, Taimur ; Leow, Jeffrey J. ; Villegas, Cassandra V. ; Kisat, Mehreen ; Schneider, Eric B. ; Haut, Elliott ; Stevens, Kent A ; Cornwell, Edward E. ; Mackenzie, Ellen J ; Efron, David Thomas. / Influence of the national trauma data bank on the study of trauma outcomes : Is it time to set research best practices to further enhance its impact?. In: Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2012 ; Vol. 214, No. 5. pp. 756-768.
@article{23e63914acbe4d12a1c2ab2846f52226,
title = "Influence of the national trauma data bank on the study of trauma outcomes: Is it time to set research best practices to further enhance its impact?",
abstract = "Background: Risk-adjusted analyses are critical in evaluating trauma outcomes. The National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) is a statistically robust registry that allows such analyses; however, analytical techniques are not yet standardized. In this study, we examined peer-reviewed manuscripts published using NTDB data, with particular attention to characteristics strongly associated with trauma outcomes. Our objective was to determine if there are substantial variations in the methodology and quality of risk-adjusted analyses and therefore, whether development of best practices for risk-adjusted analyses is warranted. Study Design: A database of all studies using NTDB data published through December 2010 was created by searching PubMed and Embase. Studies with multivariate risk-adjusted analyses were examined for their central question, main outcomes measures, analytical techniques, covariates in adjusted analyses, and handling of missing data. Results: Of 286 NTDB publications, 122 performed a multivariable adjusted analysis. These studies focused on clinical outcomes (51 studies), public health policy or injury prevention (30), quality (16), disparities (15), trauma center designation (6), or scoring systems (4). Mortality was the main outcome in 98 of these studies. There were considerable differences in the covariates used for case adjustment. The 3 covariates most frequently controlled for were age (95{\%}), Injury Severity Score (85{\%}), and sex (78{\%}). Up to 43{\%} of studies did not control for the 5 basic covariates necessary to conduct a risk-adjusted analysis of trauma mortality. Less than 10{\%} of studies used clustering to adjust for facility differences or imputation to handle missing data. Conclusions: There is significant variability in how risk-adjusted analyses using data from the NTDB are performed. Best practices are needed to further improve the quality of research from the NTDB.",
author = "Haider, {Adil H.} and Taimur Saleem and Leow, {Jeffrey J.} and Villegas, {Cassandra V.} and Mehreen Kisat and Schneider, {Eric B.} and Elliott Haut and Stevens, {Kent A} and Cornwell, {Edward E.} and Mackenzie, {Ellen J} and Efron, {David Thomas}",
year = "2012",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.12.013",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "214",
pages = "756--768",
journal = "Journal of the American College of Surgeons",
issn = "1072-7515",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Influence of the national trauma data bank on the study of trauma outcomes

T2 - Is it time to set research best practices to further enhance its impact?

AU - Haider, Adil H.

AU - Saleem, Taimur

AU - Leow, Jeffrey J.

AU - Villegas, Cassandra V.

AU - Kisat, Mehreen

AU - Schneider, Eric B.

AU - Haut, Elliott

AU - Stevens, Kent A

AU - Cornwell, Edward E.

AU - Mackenzie, Ellen J

AU - Efron, David Thomas

PY - 2012/5

Y1 - 2012/5

N2 - Background: Risk-adjusted analyses are critical in evaluating trauma outcomes. The National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) is a statistically robust registry that allows such analyses; however, analytical techniques are not yet standardized. In this study, we examined peer-reviewed manuscripts published using NTDB data, with particular attention to characteristics strongly associated with trauma outcomes. Our objective was to determine if there are substantial variations in the methodology and quality of risk-adjusted analyses and therefore, whether development of best practices for risk-adjusted analyses is warranted. Study Design: A database of all studies using NTDB data published through December 2010 was created by searching PubMed and Embase. Studies with multivariate risk-adjusted analyses were examined for their central question, main outcomes measures, analytical techniques, covariates in adjusted analyses, and handling of missing data. Results: Of 286 NTDB publications, 122 performed a multivariable adjusted analysis. These studies focused on clinical outcomes (51 studies), public health policy or injury prevention (30), quality (16), disparities (15), trauma center designation (6), or scoring systems (4). Mortality was the main outcome in 98 of these studies. There were considerable differences in the covariates used for case adjustment. The 3 covariates most frequently controlled for were age (95%), Injury Severity Score (85%), and sex (78%). Up to 43% of studies did not control for the 5 basic covariates necessary to conduct a risk-adjusted analysis of trauma mortality. Less than 10% of studies used clustering to adjust for facility differences or imputation to handle missing data. Conclusions: There is significant variability in how risk-adjusted analyses using data from the NTDB are performed. Best practices are needed to further improve the quality of research from the NTDB.

AB - Background: Risk-adjusted analyses are critical in evaluating trauma outcomes. The National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) is a statistically robust registry that allows such analyses; however, analytical techniques are not yet standardized. In this study, we examined peer-reviewed manuscripts published using NTDB data, with particular attention to characteristics strongly associated with trauma outcomes. Our objective was to determine if there are substantial variations in the methodology and quality of risk-adjusted analyses and therefore, whether development of best practices for risk-adjusted analyses is warranted. Study Design: A database of all studies using NTDB data published through December 2010 was created by searching PubMed and Embase. Studies with multivariate risk-adjusted analyses were examined for their central question, main outcomes measures, analytical techniques, covariates in adjusted analyses, and handling of missing data. Results: Of 286 NTDB publications, 122 performed a multivariable adjusted analysis. These studies focused on clinical outcomes (51 studies), public health policy or injury prevention (30), quality (16), disparities (15), trauma center designation (6), or scoring systems (4). Mortality was the main outcome in 98 of these studies. There were considerable differences in the covariates used for case adjustment. The 3 covariates most frequently controlled for were age (95%), Injury Severity Score (85%), and sex (78%). Up to 43% of studies did not control for the 5 basic covariates necessary to conduct a risk-adjusted analysis of trauma mortality. Less than 10% of studies used clustering to adjust for facility differences or imputation to handle missing data. Conclusions: There is significant variability in how risk-adjusted analyses using data from the NTDB are performed. Best practices are needed to further improve the quality of research from the NTDB.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84860224751&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84860224751&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.12.013

DO - 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.12.013

M3 - Article

C2 - 22321521

AN - SCOPUS:84860224751

VL - 214

SP - 756

EP - 768

JO - Journal of the American College of Surgeons

JF - Journal of the American College of Surgeons

SN - 1072-7515

IS - 5

ER -