Back to Search Start Over

Exploring the similarities and differences of burn registers globally: Results from a data dictionary comparison study.

Authors :
Bebbington, Emily
Miles, Joanna
Young, Amber
van Baar, Margriet E.
Bernal, Nicole
Brekke, Ragnvald Ljones
van Dammen, Lotte
Elmasry, Moustafa
Inoue, Yoshiaki
McMullen, Kara A.
Paton, Lia
Thamm, Oliver C.
Tracy, Lincoln M.
Zia, Nukhba
Singer, Yvonne
Dunn, Ken
Source :
Burns (03054179). May2024, Vol. 50 Issue 4, p850-865. 16p.
Publication Year :
2024

Abstract

Pooling and comparing data from the existing global network of burn registers represents a powerful, yet untapped, opportunity to improve burn prevention and care. There have been no studies investigating whether registers are sufficiently similar to allow data comparisons. It is also not known what differences exist that could bias analyses. Understanding this information is essential prior to any future data sharing. The aim of this project was to compare the variables collected in countrywide and intercountry burn registers to understand their similarities and differences. Register custodians were invited to participate and share their data dictionaries. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were compared to understand each register population. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the number of unique variables. Variables were classified into themes. Definition, method, timing of measurement, and response options were compared for a sample of register concepts. 13 burn registries participated in the study. Inclusion criteria varied between registers. Median number of variables per register was 94 (range 28 - 890), of which 24% (range 4.8 – 100%) were required to be collected. Six themes (patient information, admission details, injury, inpatient, outpatient, other) and 41 subthemes were identified. Register concepts of age and timing of injury show similarities in data collection. Intent, mechanism, inhalational injury, infection, and patient death show greater variation in measurement. We found some commonalities between registers and some differences. Commonalities would assist in any future efforts to pool and compare data between registers. Differences between registers could introduce selection and measurement bias, which needs to be addressed in any strategy aiming to facilitate burn register data sharing. We recommend the development of common data elements used in an international minimum data set for burn injuries, including standard definitions and methods of measurement, as the next step in achieving burn register data sharing. • We investigated similarities and differences of 13 international burn registers. • The 2759 variables collected can be categorised into 6 themes and 41 subthemes. • Inclusion criteria differences may lead to selection bias in data comparisons. • Mapping examples are provided to show how variable harmonisation could be achieved. • Creation of common data elements would reduce measurement bias in data comparisons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
03054179
Volume :
50
Issue :
4
Database :
Academic Search Index
Journal :
Burns (03054179)
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
176811015
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2024.01.004