Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40479386›Full record

ReviewPravention und Gesundheitsforderung2022

[What can registries contribute to health services research?]

Frank Griesinger, Martina Jänicke

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pravention und Gesundheitsforderung, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Frank GriesingerKlinik für Hämatologie und Onkologie, Innere Medizin-Onkologie, Koordinator Cancer Center Oldenburg, Pius-Hospital, Medizinischer Campus Universität Oldenburg, Georgstr. 12, 26121 Oldenburg, Deutschland.
Martina JänickeAbteilungsleitung Clinical Epidemiology and Health Economics, iOMEDICO, Ellen-Gottlieb-Straße 19, 79106 Freiburg, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Registries are structured collections of data from a prespecified group of patients. Registry data from patients treated in routine clinical care can be used to answer numerous questions, ranging from clinical to health services research. Objectives: This article provides an overview of key applications of registry data. Materials and methods: Three key applications of registry data are illustrated based on an exploratory search of published literature. Results: Registry data create transparency regarding patients and treatments in routine care, e.g., use and effectiveness of treatment outside of clinical trials, where patients are often older and have comorbidities. Hence, registries can be key for quality assurance of patient care. In addition, they allow long-term observation of patients and identification of rare side effects. Registries are a key tool for health services research to generate hypotheses, e.g., concerning the optional treatment of specific groups of patients for whom no randomized controlled clinical trials have been conducted. Furthermore, risk profiles and prognostic scores can be developed using registry data. Finally, application of registry data has also recently become a topic of discussion for regulatory filings during approval and benefit assessments of novel treatments when evidence from clinical trials is considered insufficient. Conclusion: Numerous questions concerning optimal patient care cannot be answered with randomized controlled clinical trials alone. High quality, prospectively collected registry data can fill this gap.

Indexed as

EpidemiologyHealth services researchMethodsOutcomes researchRegistries

Identifiers

PMID40479386
PMCPMC9395927

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.