Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31210972›Full record

ReviewEFORT open reviews2019

The what, when and how of orthopaedic registers: an introduction into register-based research.

Claus Varnum, Alma Bečić Pedersen, Per Hviid Gundtoft, Søren Overgaard

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in EFORT open reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Validation of the Swedish Quality Register for Ear Surgery - SwedEar.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023
    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. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors.

Claus VarnumThe Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register.
Alma Bečić PedersenDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Per Hviid GundtoftDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Søren OvergaardThe Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Establishment of orthopaedic registers started in 1975 and many registers have been initiated since. The main purpose of registers is to collect information on patients, implants and procedures in order to monitor and improve the outcome of the specific procedure.Data validity reflects the quality of the registered data and consists of four major aspects: coverage of the register, registration completeness of procedures/patients, registration completeness of variables included in the register and accuracy of registered variables.Survival analysis is often used in register studies to estimate the incidence of an outcome. The most commonly used survival analysis is the Kaplan-Meier survival curves, which present the proportion of patients who have not experienced the defined event (e.g. death or revision of a prosthesis) in relation to the time. Depending on the research question, competing events can be taken into account by using the cumulative incidence function. Cox regression analysis is used to compare survival data for different groups taking differences between groups into account.When interpreting the results from observational register-based studies a number of factors including selection bias, information bias, chance and confounding have to be taken into account. In observational register-based studies selection bias is related to, for example, absence of complete follow-up of the patients, whereas information bias is related to, for example, misclassification of exposure (e.g. risk factor of interest) or/and outcome.The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected Data guidelines should be used for studies based on routinely-collected health data including orthopaedic registers.Linkage between orthopaedic registers, other clinical quality databases and administrative health registers may be of value when performing orthopaedic register-based research. Cite this article:

Indexed as

bias and confoundingdata validityguidelinesorthopaedic registerssurvival analyses

Identifiers

PMID31210972
PMCPMC6549105

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.