ReviewCardiovascular diagnosis and therapy2025
Establishing a cardiology registry: navigating quality and regulatory challenges with a focus on congenital heart disease.
Review in Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy, 2025. 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.
- Design and evaluation of an automated pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia registry from clinical data warehouses.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Genetic Syndromes and Multimorbidity in Adults with Congenital Heart Disease and Heart Failure: Insights from the PATHFINDER-CHD Registry.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Dual Disease Burden: Growing Older with Congenital Heart Disease and Hereditary Metabolic and Connective Tissue Disorders-Data from the PATHFINDER-CHD Registry on Heart Failure.Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Overweight and Obesity in Adults with Congenital Heart Disease and Heart Failure: Real-World Evidence from the PATHFINDER-CHD Registry.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Registries have become pivotal in medical research, offering a robust foundation for understanding disease incidence, treatment patterns, and patient outcomes across diverse populations. By aggregating real-world data (RWD), registries provide invaluable insights into real-world evidence (RWE), shaping clinical guidelines, healthcare policies, and regulatory decisions. Their widespread acceptance underscores their scientific validity and their role in driving evidence-based medicine, ultimately improving healthcare outcomes. In cardiology, particularly within the specialized field of congenital heart disease (CHD), national and international registries have emerged as indispensable tools. They enable the systematic collection of data on patient demographics, disease progression, therapeutic interventions, and long-term outcomes. These datasets support a range of purposes, including observational studies, quality improvement initiatives, and regulatory assessments of medical devices or pharmaceuticals. Establishing a high-quality registry requires meticulous planning and adherence to established guidelines. Professional organizations, such as the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the American Heart Association (AHA), offer detailed guidance documents for setting up and managing registries. Additionally, various checklists and frameworks exist to evaluate and ensure registry quality, aiding researchers in optimizing data reliability and utility. With advancements in digital health, the potential of electronic health records (EHRs) to complement or replace traditional registries is increasingly explored. EHRs offer a dynamic, real-time data collection mechanism, reducing redundancy and operational costs while maintaining data accuracy. However, considerations around interoperability, data privacy, and standardization remain critical in leveraging EHRs for registry purposes.
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.