ArticleOrphanet journal of rare diseases2019
RD-RAP: beyond rare disease patient registries, devising a comprehensive data and analytic framework.
Article in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Minimum Data Set for Rare Diseases: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Pooled it
- Exploring the Clinical and Genetic Landscape of Angelman Syndrome: Patient-Reported Insights from an Italian Registry.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Scoping review of the recommendations and guidance for improving the quality of rare disease registries.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2024Article
- EURO-NMD registry: federated FAIR infrastructure, innovative technologies and concepts of a patient-centred registry for rare neuromuscular disorders.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2024Review
- Lessons from the Rare Diseases Registry and Analytics Platform framework for development of a national rare diseases registry for India.Journal of biosciences · 2024Article
- Does the registry speak your language? A case study of the Global Angelman Syndrome Registry.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2023Article
- Examining the National Representativeness of the Axon Registry: A Neurology-Specific Patient Registry.Neurology · 2023Article
- Data saves lives: optimising routinely collected clinical data for rare disease research.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2023Article
- Rare lysosomal disease registries: lessons learned over three decades of real-world evidence.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2022Review
- Article
- Global Registries in Congenital Hyperinsulinism.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Article
- Patients' priorities and expectations on an EU registry for rare bone and mineral conditions.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2021Article
- Establishment of an International Collaborative Network for N-of-1 Trials and Single-Case Designs.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2021Article
- Mapping, Infrastructure, and Data Analysis for the Brazilian Network of Rare Diseases: Protocol for the RARASnet Observational Cohort Study.JMIR research protocols · 2021Article
- Enroll-HD: An Integrated Clinical Research Platform and Worldwide Observational Study for Huntington's Disease.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Within the 21 APEC economies alone, there are an estimated 200 million individuals living with a rare disease. As such, health data on these individuals, and hence patient registries, are vital. However, registries can come in many different forms and operating models in different jurisdictions. They possess a varying degree of functionality and are used for a variety of purposes. For instance registries can facilitate service planning as well as underpin public health and clinical research by providing de-identified data to researchers. Furthermore, registries may be used to create and disseminate new knowledge to inform clinical best practice and care, to identify and enrol participants for clinical trials, and to enable seamless integration of patient data for diagnostic testing and cascade screening. Registries that add capability such as capturing patient reported outcomes enable patients, and their carers, to become active partners in their care, rapidly furthering research and ensuring up-to-date practice-based evidence. Typically, a patient registry centres around the notion of health data 'capture', usually for only one or a small subset of the functions outlined above, thereby creating fragmented datasets that, despite the best efforts and intentions, make it difficult to exchange the right data for the right purpose to the right stakeholder under appropriate governance arrangements. Trying to incorporate maximum functionality into a registry is an obvious strategy, but monolithic software solutions are not desirable. As an alternative, we propose that it is important to incorporate analytics as core to a patient registry, rather than just utilising registries as a 'data capture' solution. We contend that embracing an analytics-centric focus makes it reasonable to imagine a future where it will be possible to evaluate the individual outcomes of health interventions in real time. The purposeful and, importantly, the repurposable application of health data will allow stakeholders to extract, create and reuse knowledge to improve health outcomes, assist clinical decision making, and improve health service design and delivery. To realise this vision, we introduce and describe the concept of a Rare Disease Registry and Analytics Platform (RD-RAP); one that we hope will make a meaningful difference to the lives of those living with a rare disease.
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.