EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 43 / No 1 (March 2011) J Extra Corpor Technol, 43 1 (2011) P44-P51 References
Free Access
Issue
J Extra Corpor Technol
Volume 43, Number 1, March 2011
Page(s) P44 - P51
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/ject/201143P44
Published online 15 March 2011
  1. Arts DGT, De Keizer NF, Scheffer G-J. Defining and improving data quality in medical registries: A literature review, case study, and generic framework. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2002;9:600–11. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Fortuna D, Vizioli M, Contini A, et al. Assessing clinical performance in cardiac surgery. Does a specialised clinical database make a difference? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2006;5:123–7. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Peterson ED, Coombs LP, Ferguson TB, et al. for the STS National Cardiac Database Investigators. Hospital variability in length of stay after coronary artery bypass surgery: Results from the society of thoracic surgeon’s national cardiac database. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;74:464–73. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Ferguson TBJr, Hammill BG, Peterson ED, DeLong ER, Grover FL, for the STS National Database Committee. A decade of change—risk profiles and outcomes for isolated coronary artery bypass grafting procedures, 1990–1999: A report from the STS National Database Committee and the Duke Clinical Research Institute. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;73:480–90. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. Yan BP, Clark DJ, Buxton B, et al. on behalf of the Australasian Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons (ASCTS), the Melbourne Interventional Group (MIG). Clinical characteristics and early mortality of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting compared to percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from the Australasian Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons (ASCTS) and the Melbourne Interventional Group (MIG) Registries. Heart Lung Circ. 2009;18:184–90. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Black N, Payne M. Improving the use of clinical databases. BMJ. 2002;324:1194. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. Black N. High-quality clinical databases: Breaking down barriers. Lancet. 1999;353:1205–6. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Sørensen HT, Sabroe S, Olsen J. A framework for evaluation of secondary data sources for epidemiological research. Int J Epidemiol. 1996;25:435–42. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Newland R, Baker RA, Stanley R, Place K, Willcox TW. The Perfusion Downunder Collaborative Database Project. J Extra Corpor Technol. 2008;40:159–65. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Reid C, Billah B, Dinh D, et al. An Australian risk prediction model for 30-day mortality after isolated coronary artery bypass: The AusSCORE. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;138:904–10. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Nashef SA, Roques F, Michel P, Gauducheau E, Lemeshow S, Salamon R. European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation (EuroSCORE). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1999;16:9–13. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Shroyer AL, Coombs LP, Peterson ED, et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons: 30-day operative mortality and morbidity risk models. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003;75:1856–65. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. Fine LG, Keogh BE, Cretin S, Orlando M, Gould MM.on behalf of the Nuffield-Rand Cardiac Surgery Demonstration Project Group. How to evaluate and improve the quality and credibility of an outcomes database: Validation and feedback study on the UK Cardiac Surgery Experience. BMJ. 2003;326:25–8. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Datta I, Findlay C, Kortbeek JB, Hameed SM. Evaluation of a regional trauma registry. Can J Surg. 2007;50:210–3. [Google Scholar]
  15. Arts DGT, Bosman RB, de Jonge E, Joore JCA, de Keizer NF. Training in data definitions improves quality of intensive care data. Crit Care. 2003;7:179–84. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Gassman JJ, Owen WW, Kuntz TE, Martin JP, Amoroso WP. Data quality assurance, monitoring, and reporting. Control Clin Trials. 1995;16:104S–36S. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.