In gratitude of the loyal support of our members, the CNS is offering complimentary 2021 Annual Meeting registration to all members! Learn more.

  • Reporting Methodology of Studies Utilizing ACS-NSQIP Database: A Systematic Review in Neurosurgery

    Final Number:
    1562

    Authors:
    Yagiz U Yolcu MD; Waseem Wahood MS; Panagiotis Kerezoudis; Mohammed Ali Alvi MD; Anshit Goyal MBBS; Mohamad Bydon MD

    Study Design:
    Other

    Subject Category:

    Meeting: Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2018 Annual Meeting

    Introduction: The use of big databases in neurosurgical research has become increasingly more common. However, authors must consider methodological approaches to improve the quality of reporting in these observational studies. Recent studies qualitatively evaluated and commented on the quality of studies utilizing databases and registries. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a qualitative analysis for the studies utilizing ACS-NSQIP, using the criteria recommended by STROBE and RECORD Statements.

    Methods: This systematic review is conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses(PRISMA) guidelines and checklists. One-hundred articles were found from all available journals and dates. PubMed, MEDLINE/Ovid and Cochrane databases queried for the electronic search. Each paper was scored according to their adherence to STROBE (out of 22) and RECORD (out of 10) criteria. Journals were divided into 2 groups as core journals and non-core journals and comparison of non-adherence to STROBE and RECORD criteria was conducted.

    Results: Total of 100 studies were included in the analysis. Median (IQR) scores for adherence to STROBE and RECORD criteria were 19.4 (19-21) and 8.2 (8-9), respectively. For STROBE, Criteria 9 (57%), 21 (43%) and 3 (19%) had the most number of non-adherence among all studies. For RECORD, Criteria 13 (68%), 9 (34%) and 5 (18%) had the most number of non-adherence among all studies. In comparison of core journals vs. non-core journals, no significant difference was found between two groups, including a subgroup analysis done for Spine and Neurosurgical Oncology sub-specialties.

    Conclusions: Increase in concerns about the utilization of national registries lead to critical analyses of these papers. In our review, it is found that, except for specific criteria according to STROBE and RECORD criteria, most of the studies show a good reporting quality overall. For further evaluation of utilization of national registries and databases, studies utilizing other databases should be assessed quantitatively as well.

    Patient Care: Aim of the current study is to improve the reporting of observational studies that utilize national registries, which evaluates the data from large number of patients. Therefore, any improvements in the quality of reporting will lead to better understanding of the information we have and result in better approaches in patient care.

    Learning Objectives: Participants are expected to: 1)Be familiar with the STROBE and RECORD statements’ criteria 2)Recognize the most common non-adherent criteria of the two guidelines to avoid future errors 3)Refine their skills in reporting findings from their studies by referring to the STROBE and RECORD guidelines

    References:

We use cookies to improve the performance of our site, to analyze the traffic to our site, and to personalize your experience of the site. You can control cookies through your browser settings. Please find more information on the cookies used on our site. Privacy Policy