000063192 001__ 63192 000063192 005__ 20190709135505.0 000063192 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016546 000063192 0248_ $$2sideral$$a101946 000063192 037__ $$aART-2017-101946 000063192 041__ $$aeng 000063192 100__ $$aAranaz Andrés, J.M. 000063192 245__ $$aComparison of two methods to estimate adverse events in the IBEAS Study (Ibero-American study of adverse events): Cross-sectional versus retrospective cohort design 000063192 260__ $$c2017 000063192 5060_ $$aAccess copy available to the general public$$fUnrestricted 000063192 5203_ $$aBackground Adverse events (AEs) epidemiology is the first step to improve practice in the healthcare system. Usually, the preferred method used to estimate the magnitude of the problem is the retrospective cohort study design, with retrospective reviews of the medical records. However this data collection involves a sophisticated sampling plan, and a process of intensive review of sometimes very heavy and complex medical records. Cross-sectional survey is also a valid and feasible methodology to study AEs. Objectives The aim of this study is to compare AEs detection using two different methodologies: cross-sectional versus retrospective cohort design. Setting Secondary and tertiary hospitals in five countries: Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico and Peru. Participants The IBEAS Study is a cross-sectional survey with a sample size of 11 379 patients. The retrospective cohort study was obtained from a 10% random sample proportional to hospital size from the entire IBEAS Study population. Methods This study compares the 1-day prevalence of the AEs obtained in the IBEAS Study with the incidence obtained through the retrospective cohort study. Results The prevalence of patients with AEs was 10.47% (95% CI 9.90 to 11.03) (1191/11 379), while the cumulative incidence of the retrospective cohort study was 19.76% (95% CI 17.35% to 22.17%) (215/1088). In both studies the highest risk of suffering AEs was seen in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients. Comorbid patients and patients with medical devices showed higher risk. Conclusion The retrospective cohort design, although requires more resources, allows to detect more AEs than the cross-sectional design. 000063192 540__ $$9info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess$$aby-nc$$uhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/es/ 000063192 590__ $$a2.413$$b2017 000063192 591__ $$aMEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL$$b43 / 154 = 0.279$$c2017$$dQ2$$eT1 000063192 592__ $$a1.372$$b2017 000063192 593__ $$aMedicine (miscellaneous)$$c2017$$dQ1 000063192 655_4 $$ainfo:eu-repo/semantics/article$$vinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion 000063192 700__ $$aLimón Ramírez, R. 000063192 700__ $$0(orcid)0000-0001-9714-8105$$aAibar Remón, C.$$uUniversidad de Zaragoza 000063192 700__ $$aGea-Velázquez De Castro, M.T. 000063192 700__ $$aBolúmar, F. 000063192 700__ $$aHernández-Aguado, I. 000063192 700__ $$aLópez Fresneña, N. 000063192 700__ $$aDíaz-Agero Pérez, C. 000063192 700__ $$aTerol García, E. 000063192 700__ $$aMichel, P. 000063192 700__ $$aSousa, P. 000063192 700__ $$aLarizgoitia Jauregui, I. 000063192 7102_ $$11008$$2615$$aUniversidad de Zaragoza$$bDpto. Microb.Med.Pr.,Sal.Públ.$$cÁrea Medic.Prevent.Salud Públ. 000063192 773__ $$g7, 10 (2017), e016546 [10 pp]$$pBMJ Open$$tBMJ open$$x2044-6055 000063192 8564_ $$s1626564$$uhttps://zaguan.unizar.es/record/63192/files/texto_completo.pdf$$yVersión publicada 000063192 8564_ $$s96622$$uhttps://zaguan.unizar.es/record/63192/files/texto_completo.jpg?subformat=icon$$xicon$$yVersión publicada 000063192 909CO $$ooai:zaguan.unizar.es:63192$$particulos$$pdriver 000063192 951__ $$a2019-07-09-11:48:10 000063192 980__ $$aARTICLE