Author:
Alhaug Ole Kristian,Kaur Simran,Dolatowski Filip,Småstuen Milada Cvancarova,Solberg Tore K.,Lønne Greger
Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
Data quality is essential for all types of research, including health registers. However, data quality is rarely reported. We aimed to assess the accuracy of data in a national spine register (NORspine) and its agreement with corresponding data in electronic patient records (EPR).
Methods
We compared data in NORspine registry against data in (EPR) for 474 patients operated for spinal stenosis in 2015 and 2016 at four public hospitals, using EPR as the gold standard. We assessed accuracy using the proportion correctly classified (PCC) and sensitivity. Agreement was quantified using Kappa statistics or interaclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
Results
The mean age (SD) was 66 (11) years, and 54% were females. Compared to EPR, surgeon-reported perioperative complications displayed weak agreement (kappa (95% CI) = 0.51 (0.33–0.69)), PCC of 96%, and a sensitivity (95% CI) of 40% (23–58%). ASA classification had a moderate agreement (kappa (95%CI) = 0.73 (0.66–0.80)). Comorbidities were underreported in NORspine. Perioperative details had strong to excellent agreements (kappa (95% CI) ranging from 0.76 ( 0.68–0.84) to 0.98 (0.95–1.00)), PCCs between 93% and 99% and sensitivities (95% CI) between 92% (0.84–1.00%) and 99% (0.98–1.00%). Patient-reported variables (height, weight, smoking) had excellent agreements (kappa (95% CI) between 0.93 (0.89–0.97) and 0.99 (0.98–0.99)).
Conclusion
Compared to electronic patient records, NORspine displayed weak agreement for perioperative complications, moderate agreement for ASA classification, strong agreement for perioperative details, and excellent agreement for height, weight, and smoking. NORspine underreported perioperative complications and comorbidities when compared to EPRs. Patient-recorded data were more accurate and should be preferred when available.
Funder
NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Orthopedics and Sports Medicine,Surgery
Reference29 articles.
1. Brooke EM, World Health Organization (1974) The current and future use of registers in health information systems / Eileen M. World Health Organization, Brooke
2. Kodra Y, de la Paz MP, Coi A, Santoro M, Bianchi F, Ahmed F, Rubinstein YR, Weinbach J, Taruscio D (2017) Data quality in rare diseases registries. Adv Exp Med Biol 1031:149–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67144-4_8
3. Derakhshan P, Azad Z, Naghdi K, Safdarian M, Zarei M, Jazayeri SB, Sharif-Alhoseini M, Zendehdel K, Amirjamshidi A, Ghodsi Z, Faghih M, Mohammadzadeh M, Khazaie Z, Zadegan S, Abedi A, Sadeghian F, Rahimi-Movaghar V (2018) P206 -The impact of data quality assurance and control solutions on the completeness, accuracy and consistency of data in a national spine registry (NSCIR). Global Spine Conferance 2018
4. Varmdal T, Bakken IJ, Janszky I, Wethal T, Ellekjær H, Rohweder G, Fjærtoft H, Ebbing M, Bønaa KH (2016) Comparison of the validity of stroke diagnoses in a medical quality register and an administrative health register. Scand J Public Health 44(2):143–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494815621641
5. Löfgren L, Eloranta S, Krawiec K, Asterkvist A, Lönnqvist C, Sandelin K, Steering group of the National Register for Breast Cancer (2019) Validation of data quality in the Swedish national register for breast cancer. BMC Public Health 19(1):495. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6846-6
Cited by
13 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献