Missing data in trauma registries

A systematic review

Gowri Shivasabesan, Biswadev Mitra, Gerard M. O'Reilly

Research output: Contribution to journalReview ArticleResearchpeer-review

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Trauma registries play an integral role in trauma systems but their valid use hinges on data quality. The aim of this study was to determine, among contemporary publications using trauma registry data, the level of reporting of data completeness and the methods used to deal with missing data. Methods: A systematic review was conducted of all trauma registry-based manuscripts published from 01 January 2015 to current date (17 March 2017). Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL using relevant subject headings and keywords. Included manuscripts were evaluated based on previously published recommendations regarding the reporting and discussion of missing data. Manuscripts were graded on their degree of characterization of such observations. In addition, the methods used to manage missing data were examined. Results: There were 539 manuscripts that met inclusion criteria. Among these, 208 (38.6%) manuscripts did not mention data completeness and 88 (16.3%) mentioned missing data but did not quantify the extent. Only a handful (n = 26; 4.8%) quantified the ‘missingness’ of all variables. Most articles (n = 477; 88.5%) contained no details such as a comparison between patient characteristics in cohorts with and without missing data. Of the 331 articles which made at least some mention of data completeness, the method of managing missing data was unknown in 34 (10.3%). When method(s) to handle missing data were identified, 234 (78.8%) manuscripts used complete case analysis only, 18 (6.1%) used multiple imputation only and 34 (11.4%) used a combination of these. Conclusion: Most manuscripts using trauma registry data did not quantify the extent of missing data for any variables and contained minimal discussion regarding missingness. Out of the studies which identified a method of managing missing data, most used complete case analysis, a method that may bias results. The lack of standardization in the reporting and management of missing data questions the validity of conclusions from research based on trauma registry data.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1641-1647
Number of pages7
JournalInjury
Volume49
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sep 2018

Keywords

  • Imputation
  • Missing data
  • Registries
  • Wounds and injuries

Cite this

@article{c8d0f737e6094edabc495792bfaf3d64,
title = "Missing data in trauma registries: A systematic review",
abstract = "Background: Trauma registries play an integral role in trauma systems but their valid use hinges on data quality. The aim of this study was to determine, among contemporary publications using trauma registry data, the level of reporting of data completeness and the methods used to deal with missing data. Methods: A systematic review was conducted of all trauma registry-based manuscripts published from 01 January 2015 to current date (17 March 2017). Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL using relevant subject headings and keywords. Included manuscripts were evaluated based on previously published recommendations regarding the reporting and discussion of missing data. Manuscripts were graded on their degree of characterization of such observations. In addition, the methods used to manage missing data were examined. Results: There were 539 manuscripts that met inclusion criteria. Among these, 208 (38.6{\%}) manuscripts did not mention data completeness and 88 (16.3{\%}) mentioned missing data but did not quantify the extent. Only a handful (n = 26; 4.8{\%}) quantified the ‘missingness’ of all variables. Most articles (n = 477; 88.5{\%}) contained no details such as a comparison between patient characteristics in cohorts with and without missing data. Of the 331 articles which made at least some mention of data completeness, the method of managing missing data was unknown in 34 (10.3{\%}). When method(s) to handle missing data were identified, 234 (78.8{\%}) manuscripts used complete case analysis only, 18 (6.1{\%}) used multiple imputation only and 34 (11.4{\%}) used a combination of these. Conclusion: Most manuscripts using trauma registry data did not quantify the extent of missing data for any variables and contained minimal discussion regarding missingness. Out of the studies which identified a method of managing missing data, most used complete case analysis, a method that may bias results. The lack of standardization in the reporting and management of missing data questions the validity of conclusions from research based on trauma registry data.",
keywords = "Imputation, Missing data, Registries, Wounds and injuries",
author = "Gowri Shivasabesan and Biswadev Mitra and O'Reilly, {Gerard M.}",
year = "2018",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.injury.2018.03.035",
language = "English",
volume = "49",
pages = "1641--1647",
journal = "Injury",
issn = "0020-1383",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "9",

}

Missing data in trauma registries : A systematic review. / Shivasabesan, Gowri; Mitra, Biswadev; O'Reilly, Gerard M.

In: Injury, Vol. 49, No. 9, 01.09.2018, p. 1641-1647.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview ArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Missing data in trauma registries

T2 - A systematic review

AU - Shivasabesan, Gowri

AU - Mitra, Biswadev

AU - O'Reilly, Gerard M.

PY - 2018/9/1

Y1 - 2018/9/1

N2 - Background: Trauma registries play an integral role in trauma systems but their valid use hinges on data quality. The aim of this study was to determine, among contemporary publications using trauma registry data, the level of reporting of data completeness and the methods used to deal with missing data. Methods: A systematic review was conducted of all trauma registry-based manuscripts published from 01 January 2015 to current date (17 March 2017). Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL using relevant subject headings and keywords. Included manuscripts were evaluated based on previously published recommendations regarding the reporting and discussion of missing data. Manuscripts were graded on their degree of characterization of such observations. In addition, the methods used to manage missing data were examined. Results: There were 539 manuscripts that met inclusion criteria. Among these, 208 (38.6%) manuscripts did not mention data completeness and 88 (16.3%) mentioned missing data but did not quantify the extent. Only a handful (n = 26; 4.8%) quantified the ‘missingness’ of all variables. Most articles (n = 477; 88.5%) contained no details such as a comparison between patient characteristics in cohorts with and without missing data. Of the 331 articles which made at least some mention of data completeness, the method of managing missing data was unknown in 34 (10.3%). When method(s) to handle missing data were identified, 234 (78.8%) manuscripts used complete case analysis only, 18 (6.1%) used multiple imputation only and 34 (11.4%) used a combination of these. Conclusion: Most manuscripts using trauma registry data did not quantify the extent of missing data for any variables and contained minimal discussion regarding missingness. Out of the studies which identified a method of managing missing data, most used complete case analysis, a method that may bias results. The lack of standardization in the reporting and management of missing data questions the validity of conclusions from research based on trauma registry data.

AB - Background: Trauma registries play an integral role in trauma systems but their valid use hinges on data quality. The aim of this study was to determine, among contemporary publications using trauma registry data, the level of reporting of data completeness and the methods used to deal with missing data. Methods: A systematic review was conducted of all trauma registry-based manuscripts published from 01 January 2015 to current date (17 March 2017). Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL using relevant subject headings and keywords. Included manuscripts were evaluated based on previously published recommendations regarding the reporting and discussion of missing data. Manuscripts were graded on their degree of characterization of such observations. In addition, the methods used to manage missing data were examined. Results: There were 539 manuscripts that met inclusion criteria. Among these, 208 (38.6%) manuscripts did not mention data completeness and 88 (16.3%) mentioned missing data but did not quantify the extent. Only a handful (n = 26; 4.8%) quantified the ‘missingness’ of all variables. Most articles (n = 477; 88.5%) contained no details such as a comparison between patient characteristics in cohorts with and without missing data. Of the 331 articles which made at least some mention of data completeness, the method of managing missing data was unknown in 34 (10.3%). When method(s) to handle missing data were identified, 234 (78.8%) manuscripts used complete case analysis only, 18 (6.1%) used multiple imputation only and 34 (11.4%) used a combination of these. Conclusion: Most manuscripts using trauma registry data did not quantify the extent of missing data for any variables and contained minimal discussion regarding missingness. Out of the studies which identified a method of managing missing data, most used complete case analysis, a method that may bias results. The lack of standardization in the reporting and management of missing data questions the validity of conclusions from research based on trauma registry data.

KW - Imputation

KW - Missing data

KW - Registries

KW - Wounds and injuries

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85045536233&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.injury.2018.03.035

DO - 10.1016/j.injury.2018.03.035

M3 - Review Article

VL - 49

SP - 1641

EP - 1647

JO - Injury

JF - Injury

SN - 0020-1383

IS - 9

ER -