ReviewJournal of neuro-ophthalmology : the official journal of the North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society2016
Research Registries: A Tool to Advance Understanding of Rare Neuro-Ophthalmic Diseases.
Review in Journal of neuro-ophthalmology : the official journal of the North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- From real world data to real world evidence to improve outcomes in neuro-ophthalmology.Eye (London, England) · 2024Review
- A systematic overview of rare disease patient registries: challenges in design, quality management, and maintenance.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2023Review
- Commentary: Rare eye diseases: More than meets the eye!Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Patients' priorities and expectations on an EU registry for rare bone and mineral conditions.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2021Article
- The Influence of Patient Identification and Narrative Transportation on Intentions to Participate in Cancer Research.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMedical research registries (MRR) are organized systems used to collect, store, and analyze patient information. They are important tools for medical research with particular application to the study of rare diseases, including those seen in neuro-ophthalmic practice. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Evidence for this review was gathered from the writers' experiences creating a comprehensive neuro-ophthalmology registry and review of the literature.
resultsMRR are typically observational and prospective databases of de-identified patient information. The structure is flexible and can accommodate a focus on specific diseases or treatments, surveillance of patient populations, physician quality improvement, or recruitment for future studies. They are particularly useful for the study of rare diseases. They can be integrated into the hierarchy of medical research at many levels provided their construction is well organized and they have several key characteristics including an easily manipulated database, comprehensive information on carefully selected patients, and comply with human subjects regulations. MRR pertinent to neuro-ophthalmology include the University of Illinois at Chicago neuro-ophthalmology registry, Susac Syndrome Registry, Intracranial Hypertension Registry, and larger-scale patient outcome registries being developed by professional societies.
conclusionMRR have a variety of forms and applications. With careful planning and clear goals, they are flexible and powerful research tools that can support multiple different study designs, and this can provide the potential to advance understanding and care of neuro-ophthalmic diseases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.