ReviewCurrent opinion in urology2017
Improving quality through clinical registries in urology.
Review in Current opinion in urology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Barriers and facilitators for the implementation of health condition and outcome registry systems: a systematic literature review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022Pooled it
- Big Data Analytics in Urologic Oncology: A Comprehensive Review of Large-scale Database Research and Clinical Applications.Current urology reports · 2026Review
- The utility of clinical registries for guiding clinical practice in upper tract urothelial cancer: a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2023Review
- Article
- Peri-operative outcomes between primary and replacement artificial urinary sphincter surgery: An ACS-NSQIP analysis.Turkish journal of urology · 2021Article
- The past, present, and future of urological quality improvement collaboratives.Translational andrology and urology · 2021Review
- Can multicentre urodynamic studies provide high quality evidence for the clinical effectiveness of urodynamics? ICI-RS 2019.Neurourology and urodynamics · 2020Article
- Diffusion, outcomes and implementation of minimally invasive liver surgery: a snapshot from the I Go MILS (Italian Group of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery) Registry.Updates in surgery · 2017Observational
- Big Data Analytics in urology: the story so far and the road ahead.Therapeutic advances in urologyReview
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
purpose of reviewIn this review, we highlight the use of clinical registries for quality improvement and research purposes in urology. We focus on national and regional clinical database registries, such as the National Surgical Quality Improvement Programme, the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor, the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement collaborative and the American Urological Association Quality Registry programme. RECENT
findingsIt is widely known that claims-based and institutional databases are limited in their capacity to provide granular, real-time data for quality improvement purposes. As a result, clinical registries have emerged as an attractive alternative given their ability to capture large amounts of data across networks of health records. Another added benefit of Federally Qualified Clinical Data Registries (QCDRs) is the ability to meet emerging Medicare quality reporting standards, such as Physician Quality Reporting System and Meaningful Use. Despite the enthusiasm for QCDRs in the field of urology, however, myriad challenges remain in their implementation and widespread adoption including integration of existing health-information technology infrastructure, the accurate measurement of quality measures and the availability of clinically relevant quality measures in subspecialty practices. SUMMARY: Quality measurement and improvement have become important aspects of modern clinical practice. Advances in health information technology have ushered in new tools, such as clinical registries, which simultaneously improve the quality of scientific research and clinical care while assisting eligible professionals in meeting federally mandated reporting requirements.
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.