Quality of data collected for severity of illness scores in the Dutch National Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE) registry
Abstract
Objective To analyse the quality of data used to measure severity of illness in the Dutch National Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE) registry, after implementation of quality improving procedures. Design Data were re-abstracted from the paper records of patients or the Patient Data Management System and compared to the data contained in the registry. The re-abstracted data were considered to be the gold standard. Setting ICUs of nine Dutch hospitals that had been collecting data for the NICE registry for at least 1 year. Measurement and results The mean percentages of inaccurate and incomplete data, per hospital, over all variables, were 6.1%+/-4.4 (SD) and 2.7%+/-4.4 (SD), respectively. The mean difference in severity of illness scores between registry data and re-abstracted data was 0.2 points for APACHE II and 0.4 points for SAPS II. The mean difference in predicted mortality according to APACHE II and SAPS II between registry data and re-abstracted data was 0.4% and 0.02%, respectively. Conclusions The current data quality of the NICE registry is good and justifies evaluative research. These positive results might be explained by the implementation of several quality assurance procedures in the NICE registry, such as training and automatic data checks. Electronic supplementary material to this paper can be obtained by using the Springer LINK server located at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-002-1272-z
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A substantial body of research suggests that data collected in EHRs and other operational systems may not be of sufficient quality for research.
“A substantial body of research suggests that data collected in EHRs and other operational systems may not be of sufficient quality for research.28–37”
From A harmonized data quality assessment terminology and framework for the secondary use of electronic health record data (2016) · cites this paper as [30]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kahn, M. G., Callahan, T. J., Barnard, J., Bauck, A. E., Brown, J., Davidson, B. N., Estiri, H., Goerg, C., Holve, E., Johnson, S. G., et al. (2016) · eGEMs (Generating Evidence & Methods to improve patient outcomes) · doi:10.13063/2327-9214.1244 · Cited by 636 · see citing works
Liaw, S. T., Rahimi, A., Ray, P., Taggart, J., Dennis, S., de Lusignan, S., Jalaludin, B., Yeo, A. E. T., & Talaei-Khoei, A. (2013) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2012.10.001 · Cited by 170 · see citing works
Peek, N., Arts, D. G. T., Bosman, R. J., van der Voort, P. H. J., & de Keizer, N. F. (2007) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.08.011 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Garza, M. Y., Williams, T., Ounpraseuth, S., Hu, Z., Lee, J., Snowden, J., Walden, A. C., Simon, A. E., Devlin, L. A., Young, L. W., et al. (2025) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2024.105749 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
- Authors
- Arts, D., de Keizer, N., Scheffer, G.-J., & de Jonge, E.
- Affiliations
- Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
- Amphia Ziekenhuis (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Arts, Daniëlle
- Venue
- Intensive Care Medicine
- Published
- 2002-04-13
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 656-659
- ISSN
- 0342-4642 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-1238
- OpenAlex
- W2066430861
- Cited by
- 134
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 5.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Intensive Care Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Keywords
- data quality, disease severity index, intensive care unit, APACHE II score, SAPS II, mortality prediction, quality assurance, electronic data management, Dutch hospitals
- MeSH terms
- Documentation, Health Services Research, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Netherlands, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Registries, Severity of Illness Index, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Statistics, Nonparametric, APACHE
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review