Assets and Liabilities of the Burn Model System Data Model: A Comparison With the National Burn Registry
Abstract
Lezotte DC, Hills RA, Heltshe SL, Holavanahalli RK, Fauerbach JA, Blakeney P, Klein MB, Engrav LH. Assets and liabilities of the Burn Model System data model: a comparison with the National Burn Registry.
Objectives
To determine whether the Burn Model System (BMS) population is representative of the larger burn population and to investigate threats to internal and external validity in a multicenter longitudinal database of severe burns.
Design
Cohort data for the BMS project have been collected since 1994. Follow-up data have been collected at 6, 12, and 24 months postburn. The demographic and burn characteristics of the BMS population were compared with those of patients in the National Burn Registry (NBR).
Setting
The BMS, which collected data for these analyses from 5 regional burn centers in the United States, and the NBR dataset, which is a registry of information collected through the Trauma Registry of the American College of Surgeons and includes data from 70 hospitals in the United States and Canada.
Participants
BMS study participants were severely burned patients treated at 1 of the 5 participating burn centers. We compared the BMS population with that of the NBR both in total and filtered to include only patients with comparable injuries.
Interventions
Not applicable.
Main Outcome Measures
Comparable demographic and burn characteristics contained in both the NBR and the 5-center BMS longitudinal database and baseline and follow-up distributions of demographic variables and burn characteristics in the BMS database.
Results
Although minor deviations in demographic distributions were found between the BMS and NBR and between discharge and follow-up populations, our results show that the BMS population sample is internally and externally valid and is adequate for answering research questions.
Conclusions
Cohort studies examining long-term outcomes have the potential flaw of using a nonrepresentative study population. The BMS population was found to be sufficiently representative, but future analyses will require cautious and purposeful application of statistical adjustment strategies.
aDepartment of Preventive Medicine and Biometrics, University of Colorado and Health Sciences Center, Denver, CO
bDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
cJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
dDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX
eUniversity of Washington Burn Center and Division of Plastic Surgery, Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, WA
Reprint requests to Dennis C. Lezotte, PhD, Dept of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center School of Medicine, 4200 E 9th Ave, Campus Box B-119, Denver, CO 80262
Supported by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Service, U.S. Department of Education (grant no. H133A020402).
No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit upon the author(s) or upon any organization with which the author(s) is/are associated.