American journal of surgery · 2016
Rectourethral fistulas: A comparison of the National Inpatient Sample and the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Schlussel Andrew T, Lustik Michael B, Delaney Conor P, Stein Sharon L, Reynolds Harry L, Senagore Anthony J, Johnson Eric K, Steele Scott R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) and the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) may be used to evaluate outcomes for uncommon conditions such as rectourethral fistulas (RUFs). We sought to review cases of RUFs and compare variables from both registries to evaluate disparities among reported data.
METHODS: Review of NSQIP (2005-2013) and NIS (2006-2011) of all patients with a RUF or RUF repair based on ICD-9-CM or CPT coding.
RESULTS: The NSQIP and NIS data sets were compared based on International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis coding for a RUF (599.1; American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program: n = 286, NIS: n = 2,357). Comorbidities varied between data sets, and in-hospital morbidity in RUF cases was greater in the NIS vs NSQIP data sets (48% vs 11%; P < .01). Further analysis identified similar outcomes when cases of a RUF that underwent an operation were compared in the NSQIP (n = 284) and NIS (n = 274) database.
CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the largest cohort of RUF cases and characterizes how using variables from both databases better elucidates details of this rare condition. These results exhibit how evaluating comparable metrics demonstrates inconsistencies between databases.
METHODS: Review of NSQIP (2005-2013) and NIS (2006-2011) of all patients with a RUF or RUF repair based on ICD-9-CM or CPT coding.
RESULTS: The NSQIP and NIS data sets were compared based on International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis coding for a RUF (599.1; American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program: n = 286, NIS: n = 2,357). Comorbidities varied between data sets, and in-hospital morbidity in RUF cases was greater in the NIS vs NSQIP data sets (48% vs 11%; P < .01). Further analysis identified similar outcomes when cases of a RUF that underwent an operation were compared in the NSQIP (n = 284) and NIS (n = 274) database.
CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the largest cohort of RUF cases and characterizes how using variables from both databases better elucidates details of this rare condition. These results exhibit how evaluating comparable metrics demonstrates inconsistencies between databases.