EllesoeSGJensenABAngquistLHHjortdalVELarsenLABrunakS. How suitable are registry data for recurrence risk calculations? Validation of diagnoses on 1,593 families with congenital heart disease. World J Pediatr Congenital Heart Sur. 2016;7(2):169–177.
2.
StricklandMJRiehle-ColarussoTJJacobsJP. The importance of nomenclature for congenital cardiac disease: implications for research and evaluation. Cardiol Young. 2008;18(suppl 2):92–100.
3.
CronkCEMalloyMEPelechAN. Completeness of state administrative databases for surveillance of congenital heart disease. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2003;67(9):597–603.
4.
FrohnertBKLusskyRCAlmsMAMendelsohnNJSymonikDMFalkenMC. Validity of hospital discharge data for identifying infants with cardiac defects. J Perinatol. 2005;25(11):737–742.
5.
PasqualiSKPetersonEDJacobsJP. Differential case ascertainment in clinical registry vs. administrative data and impact on outcomes assessment in pediatric heart surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;95(1):197–203.
6.
PasqualiSKHeXJacobsJP. Measuring hospital performance in congenital heart surgery: a comparison of administrative and clinical registry data. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99(3):932–938.
7.
JantzenDWHeXJacobsJP. The impact of differential case ascertainment in clinical registry versus administrative data on assessment of resource utilization in pediatric heart surgery. World J Pediatr Congenit Heart Surg. 2014;5(3):398–405.
8.
PasqualiSKJacobsJPShookGJ. Linking clinical registry data with administrative data using indirect identifiers: implementation and validation in the congenital heart surgery population. Am Heart J. 2010;160(6):1099–1104.
9.
PasqualiSKJacobsJPBoveEL. Quality-cost relationship in congenital heart surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;100(4):1416–1421.
10.
McHughKEPasqualiSKHallMAScheurerMA. Association of post-operative complications with clinical outcomes and hospital costs following the Norwood operation. Circulation. 2014;130(suppl 2):a17406.
