SynthesisBMJ open2019
Economic evaluation of clinical quality registries: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- An Exploration of the Utility and Impacts of Implementation Science Strategies by Cancer Registries for Healthcare Improvement: A Systematic Review.International journal of health policy and management · 2024Pooled it
- Development of a National Clinical Registry for CABG Surgery in Saudi Arabia-The SCAR Project.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Leveraging Clinical Registries and Electronic Health Systems to Advance Value-Based Medicine Across Specialties.The Permanente journal · 2026Review
- Large language models for zero-shot procedure extraction in orthopedic surgery: a comparative evaluation.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Impacts of Multidisciplinary Lung Cancer Meeting Presentation in a Clinical Quality Registry.JTO clinical and research reports · 2026Article
- Assessing the value for money of a registry: an exploratory analysis of the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.Acta orthopaedica · 2026Article
- Assessment and outcome of the management of hyperthyroidism in Malaysian primary care clinics: A national multicentre study.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2025Article
- Clinical quality registries: Establishing the socio-technical infrastructure for learning health systems.Learning health systems · 2025Article
- Utility of PROM Questionnaires: Correlation of Question Burden and Response Rate Among Surgically Treated Patients with Musculoskeletal Diseases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- [Quality of process records in the surgical area and possible consequences for patient safety].Anales del sistema sanitario de Navarra · 2025Article
- The emerging economic evidence and methods used to evaluate clinical registries: a systematic scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Emergency Department Clinical Quality Registries: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The use of outcome data from quality registries to learn and improve; a Dutch nationwide quantitative analysis in five disease areas.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Assessing Opportunities and Barriers to Improving the Secondary Use of Health Care Data at the National Level: Multicase Study in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Estonia.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Development of a Bariatric Surgery Core Data Set for an International Registry.Obesity surgery · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Hip fracture registries in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.Archives of osteoporosis · 2023Article
- Economic Evaluation of the Community Benefit of the Australian Pregnancy Register of Antiseizure Medications.Neurology · 2023Observational
- Establishing Self-Harm Registers: The Role of Process Mapping to Improve Quality of Surveillance Data Globally.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of this systematic review was to examine the existing evidence base for the cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit of clinical quality registries (CQRs).
designSystematic review and narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES: Nine electronic bibliographic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL, in the period from January 2000 to August 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Any peer-reviewed published study or grey literature in English which had reported on an economic evaluation of one or more CQRs. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were screened, extracted and appraised by two independent reviewers. A narrative synthesis was performed around key attributes of each CQR and on key patient outcomes or changes to healthcare processes or utilisation. A narrative synthesis of the cost-effectiveness associated with CQRs was also conducted. The primary outcome was cost-effectiveness, in terms of the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), cost savings or return-on-investment (ROI) attributed to CQR implementation.
resultsThree studies and one government report met the inclusion criteria for the review. A study of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Programme (NSQIP) in the USA found that the cost-effectiveness of this registry improved over time, based on an ICER of US$8312 per postoperative event avoided. A separate study in Canada estimated the ROI to be US$3.43 per US$1.00 invested in the NSQIP. An evaluation of a post-splenectomy CQR in Australia estimated that registry cost-effectiveness improved from US$234 329 to US$18 358 per life year gained when considering the benefits accrued over the lifetime of the population. The government report evaluating five Australian CQRs estimated an overall return of 1.6-5.5 times the cost of investment.
conclusionsAvailable data indicate that CQRs can be cost-effective and can lead to significant returns on investment. It is clear that further studies that evaluate the economic and clinical impacts of CQRs are necessary. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018116807.
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.