Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28947457›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2017

What are the essential features of a successful surgical registry? a systematic review.

Rishi Mandavia, Alec Knight, John Phillips, Elias Mossialos, Peter Littlejohns, Anne Schilder

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Development of a National Ménière's Disease Registry: A Feasibility Study.The journal of international advanced otology · 2024
    Observational
  12. Article
  13. National spine surgery registries' characteristics and aims: globally accepted standards have yet to be met. Results of a scoping review and a complementary survey.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2023
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors.

Rishi MandaviaevidENT team, UCL Ear Institute, Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital, London, UK.
Alec KnightDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
John PhillipsDepartment of Ear Nose and Throat Surgery, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK.
Elias MossialosCentre for Health Policy, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, London, UK.
Peter LittlejohnsDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Anne SchilderevidENT team, UCL Ear Institute, Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital, London, UK.

Funding

Department of Health NIHR-RP-011-045
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe regulation of surgical implants is vital to patient safety, and there is an international drive to establish registries for all implants. Hearing loss is an area of unmet need, and industry is targeting this field with a growing range of surgically implanted hearing devices. Currently, there is no comprehensive UK registry capturing data on these devices; in its absence, it is difficult to monitor safety, practices and effectiveness. A solution is developing a national registry of all auditory implants. However, developing and maintaining a registry faces considerable challenges. In this systematic review, we aimed to identify the essential features of a successful surgical registry.

methodsA systematic literature review was performed adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis recommendations. A comprehensive search of the Medline and Embase databases was conducted in November 2016 using the Ovid Portal. Inclusion criteria were: publications describing the design, development, critical analysis or current status of a national surgical registry. All registry names identified in the screening process were noted and searched in the grey literature. Available national registry reports were reviewed from registry websites. Data were extracted using a data extraction table developed by thematic analysis. Extracted data were synthesised into a structured narrative.

resultsSixty-nine publications were included. The fundamentals to successful registry development include: steering committee to lead and oversee the registry; clear registry objectives; planning for initial and long-term funding; strategic national collaborations among key stakeholders; dedicated registry management team; consensus meetings to agree registry dataset; established data processing systems; anticipating challenges; and implementing strategies to increase data completion. Patient involvement and awareness of legal factors should occur throughout the development process.

conclusionsThis systematic review provides robust knowledge that can be used to inform the successful development of any UK surgical registry. It also provides a methodological framework for international surgical registry development.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorEquipment and SuppliesHumansPatient SafetyProstheses and ImplantsQuality ControlRegistrieshealth informaticsotolaryngologyregistrysurgery

Identifiers

PMID28947457
PMCPMC5623553

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.