Critically Appraising the Quality of Reporting of American College of Surgeons TQIP Studies in the Era of Large Data Research

Anthony Gebran · Antoine Bejjani · Daniel Badin · Hadi Sabbagh · Tala Mahmoud · Mohamad N. El Moheb +4 more

8 citations0/0 files storedJournal of the American College of Surgeons

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Trauma and Emergency Care Studies Statistical Methods in Epidemiology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons-Trauma Quality Improvement Program (ACS-TQIP) database is one of the most widely used databases for trauma research. We aimed to critically appraise the quality of the methodological reporting of ACS-TQIP studies. STUDY DESIGN: The ACS-TQIP bibliography was queried for all studies published between January 2018 and January 2021. The quality of data reporting was assessed using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology-Reporting of Studies Conducted Using Observational Routinely Collected Health Data (STROBE-RECORD) statement and the JAMA Surgery checklist. Three items from each tool were not applicable and thus excluded. The quality of reporting was compared between high- and low-impact factor (IF) journals (cutoff for high IF is >90th percentile of all surgical journals). RESULTS: A total of 118 eligible studies were included; 12 (10%) were published in high-IF journals. The median (interquartile range) number of criteria fulfilled was 5 (4-6) for the STROBE-RECORD statement (of 10 items) and 5 (5-6) for the JAMA Surgery checklist (of 7 items). Specifically, 73% of studies did not describe the patient population selection process, 61% did not address data cleaning or the implications of missing values, and 76% did not properly state inclusion/exclusion criteria and/or outcome variables. Studies published in high-IF journals had remarkably higher quality of reporting than those in low-IF journals. CONCLUSION: The methodological reporting quality of ACS-TQIP studies remains suboptimal. Future efforts should focus on improving adherence to standard reporting guidelines to mitigate potential bias and improve the reproducibility of published studies.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 8 citations exist upstream.

References

2014The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies 2015The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) Statement 2017Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality 2014Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review 2013A systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature 2006Standards of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials in General Surgery 2015Quality of reporting of confounding remained suboptimal after the STROBE guideline 2020Pediatric Firearm Injuries and Fatalities: Do Racial Disparities Exist?

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.