Open Access
Review
Table 2.
Assessment of quality of articles.
| Author, Year | Data capture | Reported completeness of data (%) | Data collection staff | Trauma data collection methods | Methods to optimise data quality | Overall subjective assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demyttenaere et al. 2009 [4] | Prospective | 93.5 | Not mentioned | Paper form | Not mentioned | Good |
| Haghparast-Bidgoli et al. 2013 [8] | Prospective | Not mentioned | Trained physicians | Validated questionnaire then data analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics | Trained physicians doing data collection | Good |
| Hashmi et al. 2013 [9] | Prospective | 90 | Trained personnel | Not mentioned | Data collection by trained personnel | Good |
| Hsia et al. 2010 [11] | Prospective | 93 | Doctors, nurses and clinical officers | Paper form then entered onto computer spreadsheet | Data checked by Senior Doctor | Moderate |
| Kobusingye and Lett 2000 [14] | Prospective | Not mentioned | Staff trained for 1 h | One page paper form then loaded onto Epi Info Version 6 | Crosschecked with hospital registration book | Moderate |
| Kobusingye et al. 2002 [13] | Prospective | 96.5 | Doctors, nurses and clinical officers | One page paper form | Data checked by Senior Doctor | Good |
| Laing et al. 2014 [17] | Prospective | 80 | Trained physicians | Computer questionnaire then analysed using FileMaker Pro 11 | Trained doctors | Good |
| Mehmood et al. 2013 [20] | Prospective | 97 | Trained research assistant | Paper form then analysed using Karachi Trauma Registry Software | Random checks of data collection by Principal Investigator | Good |
| Moini et al. 2000 [22] | Prospective | 95 | Trained physicians | Paper form then Epi Info then analysed using IBM SPSS | Trained physicians | Good |
| Nottidge et al. 2014 [25] | Prospective | Varied completeness of data collection | Not mentioned | Paper form then Epi Info | Not mentioned | Moderate-poor |
| Ordóñez et al. 2012 [29] | Prospective and retrospective | 37.6 | Full time staff for data recording | International Trauma Registry web-based form | Electronic retrieval from electronic notes | Good |
| Petroze et al. 2014 [32] | Prospective | Not mentioned | Trained data manager | Paper form then entered into Microsoft Access | Trained data manager | Good |
| Plummer et al. 2010 [33] | Prospective | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Collected and transferred to Trauma! Software programme | Not mentioned | Moderate-poor |
| Rabbani and Moini 2007 [34] | Prospective | Not mentioned | Trained physicians | Not mentioned | Trained physicians | Moderate-poor |
| Roy et al. 2010 [37] | Prospective | 95 | Medical intern collecting data | Questionnaire then analysed using STATA | Dedicated intern collecting data | Good |
| Sabariah et al. 2008 [38] | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Moderate-poor |
| Samuel et al. 2010 [39] | Prospective | Not mentioned | Trained registry clerk 24 h/day | Double-sided registry form | Trained registry clerk 24 h/day | Moderate |
| Schuurman et al. 2011 [40] | Prospective | Varied: displayed as a table in the paper | Two trained researchers | Paper form | Two trained researchers | Good |
| Seidenberg et al. 2014 [41] | Prospective | Not mentioned | Trained staff 24 h/day | Registry questionnaire, then Cardiff Teleform | Trained staff 24 h/day and data collected twice daily when admitted | Good |
| Squyer et al. 2008 [42] | Retrospective | 75 | Not mentioned | Medical records reviewed from trauma patients | Not mentioned | Moderate |
| Wainiqolo et al. 2012 [43] | Not mentioned | Not mentioned | Research assistants and hospital nurses | Injury surveillance questionnaire | Research assistants | Moderate |
| Ward et al. 2010 [44] | Prospective and retrospective | Not mentioned | Trained medical records clerks | Not mentioned | Trained medical records clerks | Moderate |
| Zafar et al. 2002 [51] | Prospective | 97 | Trained researcher | Trauma paper form then electronic Trauma Registry v3.0 | Trained researcher | Good |
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.