Validating a Claims-based Method for Assessing Severe Rectal and Urinary Adverse Effects of Radiotherapy

Sewell, Joseph M.; Rao, A. Muralikrishna; Elliott, Sean P.

doi:10.1016/j.urology.2013.02.071

Cited by 17 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Data sources such as laboratory values and free text extractions of electronic medical records are novel ways to validate coding elements using existing electronic health data. There are numerous validation studies relevant to urology that have already been published, such as determining the ability of RCD to identify recurrent prostate cancer, 19 upper tract stone disease, 20 adverse urological outcomes of radiation therapy, 21 and other common variables of interest (such as smoking 22 and chronic renal dysfunction). 23 Systematic reviews of validation studies (available for a wide variety of medical diseases) provide an important summary of common conditions, which can be used to make a strong argument about the appropriateness and accuracy of coding schemes.…”

Section: Current Status Of Reporting Of Rcd Studies In Urologymentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of routinely collected data studies in urology: Methodological considerations, reporting quality, and future directions

Welk

Kwong

2017

CUAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies using routinely collected data (RCD) are common in the urological literature; however, there are important considerations in the creation and review of RCD discoveries. A recent reporting guideline (REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data, RECORD) was developed to improve the reporting of these studies. This narrative review examines important considerations for RCD studies. To assess the current level of reporting in the urological literature, we reviewed all the original research articles published in Journal of Urology and European Urology in 2014, and determined the proportion of the RECORD checklist items that were reported for RCD studies. There were 56 RCD studies identified among the 608 articles. When the RECORD items were considered applicable to the specific study, they were reported in 52.5% of cases. Studies most consistently (>80% of them) reported the names of the data sources, the study time frame, the extent to which the authors could access the database source, the patient selection, and discussed missing data. Few studies (<25%) discussed validation of key coding elements, details on data-linkage, data-cleaning, the impact of changing eligibility over time, or provided the complete list of coding elements used to define key study variables. Reporting factors specifically relevant in RCD studies may serve to increase the quality of these studies in the urological literature. With increased technological integration in healthcare and the proliferation of electronic medical records, RCD will continue to be an important source for urological research. IntroductionRoutinely collected data (RCD, also known as administrative data) is increasingly being used to answer clinical research questions. While there are many sources of observational data (for example, population surveys or patient registries), RCD is specifically defined as data that is routinely collected for a purpose other than research. Common examples of RCD sources include physician billing records, insurance company records, or government-mandated healthcare utilization records. 1There are several important strengths that have driven the increased use of RCD research over the last two decades. These include low study costs (especially when compared to prospective clinical studies or randomized, controlled trials), rapid delivery of results, substantial sample sizes, improved generalizability, long-term patient followup (often across different hospitals and physician practices), and the ability to identify very rare patient populations or outcomes.Given the apparent increase in publications using RCD in many urological journals, we sought to review several key issues related to this research area that are relevant for those conducting these studies, and for clinicians who wish to critically read these studies, understand potential methodological limitations, and evaluate the strength of the study's conclusions. Methodological considerations for the use of RCDAny study using RCD ...

show abstract

Section: Current Status Of Reporting Of Rcd Studies In Urologymentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of routinely collected data studies in urology: Methodological considerations, reporting quality, and future directions

Welk

Kwong

2017

CUAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…CPT codes are quite accurate 30,31 because they represent surgical procedures that are used for billing and there is no reason to believe that this coding bias was differential across states and years of our study. The state databases are not nationally representative and should not be used to make national inferences.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

US Geographical Variation in Rates of Shoulder and Knee Arthroscopy and Association With Orthopedist Density

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our findings support the notion that in addition to damage inflicted on the ureter directly during surgery, compromise of the supplying vasculature with subsequent segmental ureteral necrosis might be responsible for some cases of ureteral stenosis. Evidence for this injury mechanism also stems from the harmful effects that radiation therapy can have on ureteral function, 16,17 most likely as a result of microvascular radio-injury. 18 Conventionally, it has been thought that the extensive longitudinal arterial and venous anastomoses running within the ureteral adventitia ensure sufficient vascularisation even when most of the lateral branches arising from the major pelvic arteries and running within the mesureter are transected during surgery.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preservation of the mesureter to reduce urinary complications: analysis of data from the observational Leipzig School MMR study

Wolf

Espig

Stolzenburg

et al. 2020

BJOG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To evaluate the feasibility and effect of mesureteral preservation on urinary complications in the context of total mesometrial resection (TMMR), a surgical treatment for cervical cancer.Design Retrospective cohort study with historic control.Setting Single tertiary academic centre.Population Women older than 18 with primary cervical cancer staged FIGO IB1-IIB enrolled in the prospective Leipzig School MMR study and underwent total mesometrial resection (TMMR) without adjuvant radiation.Method We retrospectively analysed 100 consecutive TMMR procedures which were performed for cancer of the uterine cervix and in which the mesureter was preserved (intervention group, 01/ 2014-06/2017). We compared this group with the previous 100 consecutive TMMRs, which were performed before the introduction of mesureteral preservation (control group, 09/2010-01/2014).Main outcome measures The occurrence of urological and specifically ureteral complications.Results Mesureteral preservation was feasible and was associated with a significant decrease in ureteral complications (11% without mesureteral preservation versus 3% with mesureteral preservation, P = 0.049). Furthermore, we found a significant decrease in the number of postoperative percutaneous nephrostomies and reoperations (7% versus none, P = 0.014). There was also a trend towards a decrease in other urinary complications such as postoperative bladder atony and uretero-vaginal fistulas. ConclusionThe mesureter constitutes a convenient dissection plane enabling the preservation of lateral ureteral blood supply during TMMR. In our study, maintenance of mesureteral integrity was associated with a significant reduction in ureteral complications. Mesureteral preservation might also be useful in other types of pelvic surgeries that carry a high risk of ureteral damage.

show abstract

Validating a Claims-based Method for Assessing Severe Rectal and Urinary Adverse Effects of Radiotherapy

Cited by 17 publications

References 15 publications

A review of routinely collected data studies in urology: Methodological considerations, reporting quality, and future directions

A review of routinely collected data studies in urology: Methodological considerations, reporting quality, and future directions

US Geographical Variation in Rates of Shoulder and Knee Arthroscopy and Association With Orthopedist Density

Preservation of the mesureter to reduce urinary complications: analysis of data from the observational Leipzig School MMR study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About