Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26648756›Full record

ReviewClinical epidemiology2015

Ethical aspects of registry-based research in the Nordic countries.

Jonas F Ludvigsson, Siri E Håberg, Gun Peggy Knudsen, Pierre Lafolie, Helga Zoega, Catharina Sarkkola, Stephanie von Kraemer, Elisabete Weiderpass, Mette Nørgaard

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical epidemiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 196 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
196citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

196 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Identifying diseases in claims data using a machine learning approach - a case from Switzerland.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Cholecystectomy Is a Risk Factor for Microscopic Colitis: A Nationwide Population-based Matched Case Control Study.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

136 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Jonas F LudvigssonDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden ; Department of Pediatrics, Örebro University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden.
Siri E HåbergNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Gun Peggy KnudsenNorwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Pierre LafolieDepartment of Medicine, Clinical Pharmacology Unit, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden ; The Stockholm Regional Ethical Review Board, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Helga ZoegaCenter of Public Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland.
Catharina SarkkolaGenetic Epidemiology Group, Folkhälsan Research Center, Helsinki, Finland.
Stephanie von KraemerGenetic Epidemiology Group, Folkhälsan Research Center, Helsinki, Finland.
Elisabete WeiderpassDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden ; Genetic Epidemiology Group, Folkhälsan Research Center, Helsinki, Finland ; Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway ; The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway ; Department of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway.
Mette NørgaardDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

National health care registries in the Nordic countries share many attributes, but different legal and ethical frameworks represent a challenge to promoting effective joint research. Internationally, there is a lack of knowledge about how ethical matters are considered in Nordic registry-based research, and a lack of knowledge about how Nordic ethics committees operate and what is needed to obtain an approval. In this paper, we review ethical aspects of registry-based research, the legal framework, the role of ethics review boards in the Nordic countries, and the structure of the ethics application. We discuss the role of informed consent in registry-based research and how to safeguard the integrity of study participants, including vulnerable subjects and children. Our review also provides information on the different government agencies that contribute registry-based data, and a list of the major health registries in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Both ethical values and conditions for registry-based research are similar in the Nordic countries. While Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden have chosen different legal frameworks, these differences can be resolved through mutual recognition of ethical applications and by harmonizing the different systems, likely leading to increased collaboration and enlarged studies.

Indexed as

ethical reviewethicsinformed consentinstitutional review boardNordic countriesregistry-based research

Identifiers

PMID26648756
PMCPMC4664438

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.