Use of large databases for orthopedic research has become extremely popular in recent years. Each database varies in the methods used to capture data and the population it represents. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how these databases differed in reported demographics, comorbidities, and postoperative complications for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients.
Primary THA patients were identified within National Surgical Quality Improvement Programs (NSQIP), Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), Medicare Standard Analytic Files (MED), and Humana administrative claims database (HAC). NSQIP definitions for comorbidities and complications were matched to corresponding International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision/Current Procedural Terminology codes to query the other databases. Demographics, comorbidities, and postoperative complications were compared.
The number of patients from each database was 22,644 in HAC, 371,715 in MED, 188,779 in NIS, and 27,818 in NSQIP. Age and gender distribution were clinically similar. Overall, there was variation in prevalence of comorbidities and rates of postoperative complications between databases. As an example, NSQIP had more than twice the obesity than NIS. HAC and MED had more than 2 times the diabetics than NSQIP. Rates of deep infection and stroke 30 days after THA had more than 2-fold difference between all databases.
Among databases commonly used in orthopedic research, there is considerable variation in complication rates following THA depending upon the database used for analysis. It is important to consider these differences when critically evaluating database research. Additionally, with the advent of bundled payments, these differences must be considered in risk adjustment models.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 October 2017.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Arthroplasty
#3,920
of 4,623 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#251,227
of 323,485 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Arthroplasty
#59
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,623 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,485 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
