Exploring the similarities and differences of burn registers globally: Results from a data dictionary comparison study.

INTRODUCTION: Pooling and comparing data from the existing global network of burn registers represents a powerful, yet untapped, opportunity to improve burn prevention and care. There have been no studies investigating whether registers are sufficiently similar to allow data comparisons. It is also not known what differences exist that could bias analyses. Understanding this information is essential prior to any future data sharing. The aim of this project was to compare the variables collected in countrywide and intercountry burn registers to understand their similarities and differences. METHODS: Register custodians were invited to participate and share their data dictionaries. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were compared to understand each register population. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the number of unique variables. Variables were classified into themes. Definition, method, timing of measurement, and response options were compared for a sample of register concepts. RESULTS: 13 burn registries participated in the study. Inclusion criteria varied between registers. Median number of variables per register was 94 (range 28 - 890), of which 24% (range 4.8 - 100%) were required to be collected. Six themes (patient information, admission details, injury, inpatient, outpatient, other) and 41 subthemes were identified. Register concepts of age and timing of injury show similarities in data collection. Intent, mechanism, inhalational injury, infection, and patient death show greater variation in measurement. CONCLUSIONS: We found some commonalities between registers and some differences. Commonalities would assist in any future efforts to pool and compare data between registers. Differences between registers could introduce selection and measurement bias, which needs to be addressed in any strategy aiming to facilitate burn register data sharing. We recommend the development of common data elements used in an international minimum data set for burn injuries, including standard definitions and methods of measurement, as the next step in achieving burn register data sharing.

Exploring the similarities and differences of variables collected by burn registers globally: protocol for a data dictionary review study.

INTRODUCTION: Burn registers can provide high-quality clinical data that can be used for surveillance, research, planning service provision and clinical quality assessment. Many countrywide and intercountry burn registers now exist. The variables collected by burn registers are not standardised internationally. Few international burn register data comparisons are completed beyond basic morbidity and mortality statistics. Data comparisons across registers require analysis of homogenous variables. Little work has been done to understand whether burn registers have sufficiently similar variables to enable useful comparisons. The aim of this project is to compare the variables collected in countrywide and intercountry burn registers internationally to understand their similarities and differences. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Burn register custodians will be invited to participate in the study and to share their register data dictionaries. Study objectives are to compare patient inclusion and exclusion criteria of each participating burn register; determine which variables are collected by each register, and if variables are required or optional, identify common variable themes; and compare a sample of variables to understand how they are defined and measured. All variable names will be extracted from each register and common themes will be identified. Detailed information will be extracted for a sample of variables to give a deeper insight into similarities and differences between registers. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No patient data will be used in this project. Permission to use each register's data dictionary will be sought from respective register custodians. Results will be presented at international meetings and published in open access journals. These results will be of interest to register custodians and researchers wishing to explore international data comparisons, and countries wishing to establish their own burn register.

Multicentre collaborative cohort study of the use of Kirschner wires for the management of supracondylar fractures in children.

PURPOSE: Supracondylar fractures of the humerus cause significant morbidity in children. Nerve damage and loss of fracture reduction are common recognised complications in patients with this injury. Uncertainty surrounds the optimal Kirschner wire configuration and diameter for closed reduction and pinning of these fractures. This study describes current practice and examined the association between wire configuration or diameter and outcomes (clinical and radiological) in the operative management of paediatric supracondylar fractures. METHODS: Children presenting with Gartland II or III supracondylar fractures at five hospitals in south-west England were eligible for inclusion. Collaborators scrutinised paper and electronic case notes. Outcome measures were maintenance of reduction and iatrogenic nerve injury. RESULTS: Altogether 209 patients were eligible for inclusion: 15.7% had a documented neurological deficit at presentation; 3.9% who were neurologically intact at presentation sustained a new deficit caused by treatment and 13.4% experienced a clinically significant loss of reduction following fixation. Maintenance of reduction was significantly better in patients treated specifically with crossed ×3 Kirschner wire configuration compared to all other configurations. The incidence of iatrogenic nerve injury was not significantly different between groups treated with different wire configurations. CONCLUSION: We present a large multicentre cohort study showing that crossed ×3 Kirschner wires are associated with better maintenance of reduction than crossed ×2 or lateral entry wires. Greater numbers would be required to properly investigate nerve injury relating to operative management of supracondylar fractures. We found significant variations in practice and compliance with the British Orthopaedic Association Standard for Trauma (BOAST) 11 guidelines.