Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 242

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Assessment of the Reliability of Data Collected for the Department of Veterans Affairs National Surgical Quality Improvement Program

Davis, Chester L., Pierce, John R., Henderson, William, Spencer, David C., Tyler, Christine, Langberg, Robert, Swafford, Jennan, Felan, Gladys S., Kearns, Martha A., Booker, Brigitte·2007·Journal of the American College of Surgeons

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Office of the Medical Inspector of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) studied the reliability of data collected by the VA's National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). The study focused on case selection bias, accuracy of reports on patients who died, and interrater reliability measurements of patient risk variables and outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Surgical data from a sample of 15 VA medical centers were analyzed. For case selection bias, reviewers applied NSQIP criteria to include or exclude 2,460 patients from the database, comparing their results with those of NSQIP staff. For accurate reporting of patients who died, reviewers compared Social Security numbers of 10,444 NSQIP records with those found in the VA Beneficiary Identification and Records Locator Subsystem, VA Patient Treatment Files, and Social Security Administration death files. For measurement of interrater reliability, reviewers reabstracted 59 variables in each of 550 patient medical records that also were recorded in the NSQIP database. RESULTS: On case selection bias, the reviewers agreed with NSQIP decisions on 2,418 (98%) of the 2,460 cases. Computer record matching identified 4 more deaths than the NSQIP total of 198, a difference of about 2%. For 52 of the categorical variables, agreement, uncorrected for chance, was 96%. For 48 of 52 categorical variables, kappas ranged from 0.61 to 1.0 (substantial to almost perfect agreement); none of the variables had kappas of less than 0.20 (slight to poor agreement). CONCLUSIONS: This sample of medical centers shows adherence to criteria in selecting cases for the NSQIP database, for reporting deaths, and for collecting patient risk variables.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.01.012

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 242

Metadata

Authors
Davis, C. L., Pierce, J. R., Henderson, W., Spencer, D. C., Tyler, C., Langberg, R., Swafford, J., Felan, G. S., Kearns, M. A., & Booker, B.
Venue
Journal of the American College of Surgeons
Published
2007-04
Volume
204
Issue
4
Pages
550-560
ISSN
1072-7515 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2069200260
Cited by
242
References
0
FWCI
11.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Assessment of the Reliability of Data Collected for the Department of Veterans Affairs National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.01.012
The paper
Davis, C. L., Pierce, J. R., Henderson, W., Spencer, D. C., Tyler, C., Langberg, R., Swafford, J., Felan, G. S., Kearns, M. A., & Booker, B. (2007). Assessment of the Reliability of Data Collected for the Department of Veterans Affairs National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.01.012

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.