Advertisement

World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 42, Issue 8, pp 2344–2347 | Cite as

How Much Data are Good Enough? Using Simulation to Determine the Reliability of Estimating POMR for Resource-Constrained Settings

  • Isobel H. Marks
  • Zhi Ven Fong
  • Sahael M. Stapleton
  • Ya-Ching Hung
  • Yanik J. Bababekov
  • David C. Chang
Original Scientific Report

Abstract

Introduction

Perioperative mortality rate (POMR) is a suggested indicator for surgical quality worldwide. Currently, POMR is often sampled by convenience; a data-driven approach for calculating sample size has not previously been attempted. We proposed a novel application of a bootstrapping sampling technique to estimate how much data are needed to be collected to reasonably estimate POMR in low-resource countries where 100% data capture is not possible.

Material and methods

Six common procedures in low- and middle-income countries were analysed by using population database in New York and California. Relative margin of error by dividing the absolute margin of error by the true population rate was calculated. Target margin of error was ±50%, because this level of precision would allow us to detect a moderate-to-large effect size.

Results and discussion

Target margin of error was achieved at 0.3% sampling size for abdominal surgery, 7% for fracture, 10% for craniotomy, 16% for pneumonectomy, 26% for hysterectomy and 60% for C-section. POMR may be estimated with fairly good reliability with small data sampling. This method demonstrates that it is possible to use a data-driven approach to determine the necessary sampling size to accurately collect POMR worldwide.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have indicated they have no disclosures.

References

  1. 1.
    Watters DA et al (2015) Perioperative mortality rate (POMR): a global indicator of access to safe surgery and anaesthesia. World J Surg 39(4):856–864.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-014-2638-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Meara JG et al (2015) Global surgery 2030: evidence and solutions for achieving health, welfare, and economic development. Lancet 386(9993):569–624CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pearse RM et al (2012) Mortality after surgery in Europe: a 7 day cohort study. Lancet (London, England) 380(9847):1059–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mikstacki A (2013) Mortality after surgery in Europe. Lancet 381(9864):369CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rickard JL, Ntakiyiruta G, Chu KM (2016) Associations with Perioperative mortality rate at a major referral hospital in Rwanda. World J Surg 40(4):784–790.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-015-3308-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2016) American College of Surgeons. [Online]. https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/acs-nsqip. Accessed: 07 Sep 2016
  7. 7.
    GS Collaborative (2016) Mortality of emergency abdominal surgery in high-, middle- and low-income countries. Br J Surg 103(8):971–988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    United Nations “Mortality estimates from major sample surveys: towards the design of a database for the monitoring of mortality levels and trends.” Population Division Technical Paper No. 2011/2. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/technical/TP2011-2_MortEstMajorSampSurv.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2018
  9. 9.
    Palmqvist CL et al (2015) Monitoring and evaluating surgical care: defining perioperative mortality rate and standardising data collection. Lancet 385:S27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ariyaratnam R et al (2015) Toward a standard approach to measurement and reporting of perioperative mortality rate as a global indicator for surgery. Surgery 158(1):17–26CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ng-Kamstra JS et al (2015) Use and definitions of perioperative mortality rates in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Lancet 385:S29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Anderson JE, Lassiter R, Bickler SW, Talamini MA, Chang DC (2012) Brief tool to measure risk-adjusted surgical outcomes in resource-limited hospitals. Arch Surg 147(9):798CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Spence RT, Mueller JL, Chang DC (2016) A novel approach to global benchmarking of risk-adjusted surgical outcomes. JAMA Surg 151(6):501CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Spence RT, Chang DC, Chu K, Panieri E, Mueller JL, Hutter MM (2017) An online tool for global benchmarking of risk-adjusted surgical outcomes. World J Surg 41(1):24–30.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-016-3668-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Biccard BM et al (2018) Perioperative patient outcomes in the African Surgical Outcomes Study: a 7-day prospective observational cohort study. Lancet.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30001-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cohen J (1992) A power primer. Psychol Bull 112(1):155–159CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Massenburg BB et al (2017) Assessing the Brazilian surgical system with six surgical indicators: a descriptive and modelling study. BMJ Glob Health 2(2):e000226CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Isobel H. Marks
    • 1
    • 2
  • Zhi Ven Fong
    • 1
  • Sahael M. Stapleton
    • 1
  • Ya-Ching Hung
    • 1
  • Yanik J. Bababekov
    • 1
  • David C. Chang
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryMassachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.Imperial CollegeLondonUK

Personalised recommendations