Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 259

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Identifying Patient Preoperative Risk Factors and Postoperative Adverse Events in Administrative Databases: Results From The Department of Veterans Affairs National Surgical Quality Improvement Program

Best, William R, Khuri, Shukri F, Phelan, Maureen, Hur, Kwan, Henderson, William G, Demakis, John G, Daley, Jennifer·2002·Journal of the American College of Surgeons

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) employs trained nurse data collectors to prospectively gather preoperative patient characteristics and 30-day postoperative outcomes for most major operations in 123 DVA hospitals to provide risk-adjusted outcomes to centers as quality indicators. It has been suggested that routine hospital discharge abstracts contain the same information and would provide accurate and complete data at much lower cost. STUDY DESIGN: With preoperative risks and 30-day outcomes recorded by trained data collectors as criteria standards, ICD-9-CM hospital discharge diagnosis codes in the Patient Treatment File (PTF) were tested for sensitivity and positive predictive value. ICD-9-CM codes for 61 preoperative patient characteristics and 21 postoperative adverse events were identified. RESULTS: Moderately good ICD-9-CM matches of descriptions were found for 37 NSQIP preoperative patient characteristics (61%); good data were available from other automated sources for another 15 (25%). ICD-9-CM coding was available for only 13 (45%) of the top 29 predictor variables. In only three (23%) was sensitivity and in only four (31%) was positive predictive value greater than 0.500. There were ICD-9-CM matches for all 21 NSQIP postoperative adverse events; multiple matches were appropriate for most. Postoperative occurrence was implied in only 41%; same breadth of clinical description in only 23%. In only four (7%) was sensitivity and only two (4%) was positive predictive value greater than 0.500. CONCLUSION: Sensitivity and positive predictive value of administrative data in comparison to NSQIP data were poor. We cannot recommend substitution of administrative data for NSQIP data methods.

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/s1072-7515(01)01183-8

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 35 references

Cited by

See all 259

Metadata

Authors
Best, W. R., Khuri, S. F., Phelan, M., Hur, K., Henderson, W. G., Demakis, J. G., & Daley, J.
Venue
Journal of the American College of Surgeons
Published
2002-03
Volume
194
Issue
3
Pages
257-266
ISSN
1072-7515 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1939126639
Cited by
259
References
35
FWCI
39.13
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: Identifying Patient Preoperative Risk Factors and Postoperative Adverse Events in Administrative Databases: Results From The Department of Veterans Affairs National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s1072-7515(01)01183-8
The paper
Best, W. R., Khuri, S. F., Phelan, M., Hur, K., Henderson, W. G., Demakis, J. G., & Daley, J. (2002). Identifying Patient Preoperative Risk Factors and Postoperative Adverse Events in Administrative Databases: Results From The Department of Veterans Affairs National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1072-7515(01)01183-8

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.