ArticleCardiology in the young2020
Registry-based trials: a potential model for cost savings?
Article in Cardiology in the young, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transforming Brain Tumor Care: The Global Impact of Radiosurgery in Multidisciplinary Treatment Over Two Decades.Cancer medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Review
- ENDOCOR: a nationwide consortium of endocarditis teams-initiating a registry for infective endocarditis within the Netherlands Heart Registration.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2025Article
- Stored Intestinal Biopsies in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Research: A Danish Nationwide Population-Based Register Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Use cases of registry-based randomized controlled trials-A review of the registries' contributions and constraints.Clinical and translational science · 2024Review
- Validity and timeliness of cancer diagnosis data collected during a prospective cohort study and reported by the English and Welsh cancer registries: a retrospective, comparative analysis.The Lancet. Oncology · 2024Observational
- Evaluating registry-based trial economics: Results from the STRESS clinical trial.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2024Article
- Cardiac Registries During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned.Current cardiology reports · 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
24 authors at 18 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsRegistry-based trials have emerged as a potentially cost-saving study methodology. Early estimates of cost savings, however, conflated the benefits associated with registry utilisation and those associated with other aspects of pragmatic trial designs, which might not all be as broadly applicable. In this study, we sought to build a practical tool that investigators could use across disciplines to estimate the ranges of potential cost differences associated with implementing registry-based trials versus standard clinical trials.
methodsWe built simulation Markov models to compare unique costs associated with data acquisition, cleaning, and linkage under a registry-based trial design versus a standard clinical trial. We conducted one-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, varying study characteristics over broad ranges, to determine thresholds at which investigators might optimally select each trial design.
resultsRegistry-based trials were more cost effective than standard clinical trials 98.6% of the time. Data-related cost savings ranged from $4300 to $600,000 with variation in study characteristics. Cost differences were most reactive to the number of patients in a study, the number of data elements per patient available in a registry, and the speed with which research coordinators could manually abstract data. Registry incorporation resulted in cost savings when as few as 3768 independent data elements were available and when manual data abstraction took as little as 3.4 seconds per data field.
conclusionsRegistries offer important resources for investigators. When available, their broad incorporation may help the scientific community reduce the costs of clinical investigation. We offer here a practical tool for investigators to assess potential costs savings.
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.