Validation of the Swedish Trauma Registry (SweTrau)
- PMID: 36808554
- PMCID: PMC9942627
- DOI: 10.1007/s00068-023-02244-6
Validation of the Swedish Trauma Registry (SweTrau)
Abstract
Purpose: Validation of registries is important to ensure accuracy of data and registry-based research. This is often done by comparisons of the original registry data with other sources, e.g. another registry or a re-registration of data. Founded in 2011, the Swedish Trauma Registry (SweTrau) consists of variables based on international consensus (the Utstein Template of Trauma). This project aimed to perform the first validation of SweTrau.
Methods: On-site re-registration was performed on randomly selected trauma patients and compared to the registration in SweTrau. Accuracy (exact agreement), correctness (exact agreement plus data within acceptable range), comparability (similarity with other registries), data completeness (1-missing data) and case completeness (1-missing cases) were deemed as either good ([Formula: see text] 85%), adequate (70-84%) or poor (< 70%). Correlation was determined as either excellent ([Formula: see text] 0.8), strong (0.6-0.79), moderate (0.4-0.59) or weak (< 0.4).
Results: The data in SweTrau had good accuracy (85.8%), correctness (89.7%) and data completeness (88.5%), as well as strong or excellent correlation (87.5%). Case completeness was 44.3%, however, for NISS > 15 case completeness was 100%. Median time to registration was 4.5 months, with 84.2% registered one year after the trauma. The comparability showed an accordance with the Utstein Template of Trauma of almost 90%.
Conclusions: The validity of SweTrau is good, with high accuracy, correctness, data completeness and correlation. The data are comparable to other trauma registries using the Utstein Template of Trauma; however, timeliness and case completeness are areas of improvement.
Keywords: Accuracy; Comparability; Correctness; Timeliness; Trauma registry; Validation.
© 2023. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Figures




Comment in
-
Trauma registries: towards global standardisation and outcome evaluation.Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2023 Aug;49(4):1611-1612. doi: 10.1007/s00068-023-02332-7. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2023. PMID: 37555992 No abstract available.
References
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources