Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 342

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Comparison of Clinical Registry Versus Administrative Claims Data for Reporting of 30-Day Surgical Complications

Lawson, Elise H., Louie, Rachel, Zingmond, David S., Brook, Robert H., Hall, Bruce L., Han, Lein, Rapp, Michael, Ko, Clifford Y.·2012·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the recording of 30-day postoperative complications between a national clinical registry and Medicare inpatient claims data and to determine whether the addition of outpatient claims data improves concordance with the clinical registry. BACKGROUND: Policymakers are increasingly discussing use of postoperative complication rates for value-based purchasing. There is debate regarding the optimal data source for such measures. METHODS: Patient records (2005-2008) from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) were linked to Medicare inpatient and outpatient claims data sets. We assessed the ability of (1) Medicare inpatient claims and (2) Medicare inpatient and outpatient claims to detect a core set of ACS-NSQIP 30-day postoperative complications: superficial surgical site infection (SSI), deep/organ-space SSI, any SSI (superficial and/or deep/organ-space), urinary tract infection, pneumonia, sepsis, deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism, venous thromboembolism (DVT and/or pulmonary embolism), and myocardial infarction. Agreement of patient-level complications by ACS-NSQIP versus Medicare was assessed by κ statistics. RESULTS: A total of 117,752 patients from more than 200 hospitals were studied. The sensitivity of inpatient claims data for detecting ACS-NSQIP complications ranged from 0.27 to 0.78; the percentage of false-positives ranged from 48% to 84%. Addition of outpatient claims data improved sensitivity slightly but also greatly increased the percentage of false-positives. Agreement was routinely poor between clinical and claims data for patient-level complications. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates important differences between ACS-NSQIP and Medicare claims data sets for measuring surgical complications. Poor accuracy potentially makes claims data suboptimal for evaluating surgical complications. These findings have meaningful implications for performance measures currently being considered.

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 · 10.1097/sla.0b013e31826b4c4f

Cites

7 of 7 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 7 references

Cited by

See all 342

Metadata

Authors
Lawson, E. H., Louie, R., Zingmond, D. S., Brook, R. H., Hall, B. L., Han, L., Rapp, M., & Ko, C. Y.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2012-12
Volume
256
Issue
6
Pages
973-981
ISSN
0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2031012876
Cited by
342
References
7
FWCI
47.98
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: A Comparison of Clinical Registry Versus Administrative Claims Data for Reporting of 30-Day Surgical Complications. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/sla.0b013e31826b4c4f
The paper
Lawson, E. H., Louie, R., Zingmond, D. S., Brook, R. H., Hall, B. L., Han, L., Rapp, M., & Ko, C. Y. (2012). A Comparison of Clinical Registry Versus Administrative Claims Data for Reporting of 30-Day Surgical Complications. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e31826b4c4f

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.