ArticlePharmaceutical medicine2020
Factors Influencing the Generation of Evidence from Simple Data Held in International Rare Disease Patient Registries.
Article in Pharmaceutical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ethics practices associated with reusing health data: an assessment of patient registries.BMC medicine · 2024Article
- IMPOWER: a national patient-generated registry for intestinal malrotation exploring diagnosis, treatment, and surgical outcomes.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2023Article
- Challenges in mapping European rare disease databases, relevant for ML-based screening technologies in terms of organizational, FAIR and legal principles: scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Developing a Sustainable Cardiovascular Disease Research Strategy in Tanzania Through Training: Leveraging From the East African Centre of Excellence in Cardiovascular Sciences Project.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRare diseases (defined as affecting < 1 in 2000 Europeans) may collectively affect up to approximately 8% of the population. The low prevalence of individual diseases limits patient studies and data collection is a key challenge; international rare disease patient registries are essential for optimal data collection and research. Registry data achieves value when research conducted on them are published-this is termed evidence generation.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to examine selected factors and their association with evidence generation, via scientific publication, from international rare disease patient registry data.
methodsAll international rare disease patient registries listed in the Orphanet 2018 report were analysed. Rates of scientific publications were compared by funding stream, disease area and registry size using multivariable regression analyses. Publication characteristics, such as novelty of findings, were also compared by registry funding stream, disease area and duration of operation.
resultsPrivately funded registries had approximately two to four times higher rates of scientific publication compared with publically funded registries, with adjusted rate ratios of 1.85 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-3.22) and 4.18 (95% CI 2.54-6.87) for private not-for-profit and private for-profit funding, respectively. The inclusion of outcomes, use of pharmaceutical medicines, novel findings and citation rate for publications generated from patient registries with any private funding was not significantly different from those attributed to only publicly funded registries.
conclusionThe results of this study indicate that privately funded international rare disease patient registries produce significantly more evidence than their publicly funded counterparts. Examination of the quality indicators of these publications showed they were of the same high quality as those generated from publicly funded patient registry data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32048210What 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.