Appraising the Quality of Reporting of American College of Surgeons NSQIP Emergency General Surgery Studies

Abstract

Background: The quality of emergency general surgery (EGS) studies that use the American College of Surgeons-National Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database is variable. We aimed to critically appraise the methodologic reporting of EGS ACS-NSQIP studies.

Study design: We searched the PubMed ACS-NSQIP bibliography for EGS studies published from 2004 to 2019. The quality of reporting of each study was assessed according to the number of criteria fulfilled with respect to the 13-item RECORD statement and the 10-item JAMA Surgery checklist. Three criteria in each checklist were not applicable and were therefore excluded. An analysis was conducted comparing studies published in high and low impact factor (IF) journals.

Results: We identified a total of 99 eligible studies. Twenty-six percent of studies were published in high IF journals, and 73% of the journals had a policy requiring adherence to reporting statements. The median number of criteria fulfilled for the RECORD statement (out of 10 items) and the JAMA Surgery checklist (out of 7 items) were both equal to 4 (interquartile range [IQR] 3, 5). Sixty-three percent of studies did not explain the methodology for data cleaning, 81% of studies did not describe the population selection process, and 55% did not discuss the implications of missing variables. There were no differences in overall scores between studies published in high and low IF journals.

Conclusions: The methodologic reporting of EGS studies using ACS-NSQIP remains suboptimal. Future efforts should focus on improving adherence to the policies to mitigate potential sources of bias and improve the credibility of large database studies.