ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2024
Recommended data elements for health registries: a survey from a German funding initiative.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Oralcanreg registry: development and evaluation of an oral and lip squamous cell cancer registry.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe selection of data elements is a decisive task within the development of a health registry. Having the right metadata is crucial for answering the particular research questions. Furthermore, the set of data elements determines the registries' readiness of interoperability and data reusability to a major extent. Six health registries shared and published their metadata within a German funding initiative. As one step in the direction of a common set of data elements, a selection of those metadata was evaluated with regard to their appropriateness for a broader usage.
methodsEach registry was asked to contribute a 10%-selection of their data elements to an evaluation sample. The survey was set up with the online survey tool "LimeSurvey Cloud". The registries and an accompanying project participated in the survey with one vote for each project. The data elements were offered in content groups along with the question of whether the data element is appropriate for health registries on a broader scale. The question could be answered using a Likert scale with five options. Furthermore, "no answer" was allowed. The level of agreement was assessed using weighted Cohen's kappa and Kendall's coefficient of concordance.
resultsThe evaluation sample consisted of 269 data elements. With a grade of "perhaps recommendable" or higher in the mean, 169 data elements were selected. These data elements belong preferably to groups' demography, education/occupation, medication, and nutrition. Half of the registries lost significance compared with their percentage of data elements in the evaluation sample, one remained stable. The level of concordance was adequate.
conclusionsThe survey revealed a set of 169 data elements recommended for health registries. When developing a registry, this set could be valuable help in selecting the metadata appropriate to answer the registry's research questions. However, due to the high specificity of research questions, data elements beyond this set will be needed to cover the whole range of interests of a register. A broader discussion and subsequent surveys are needed to establish a common set of data elements on an international scale.
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.