Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40555451›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

The emerging economic evidence and methods used to evaluate clinical registries: a systematic scoping review protocol.

Kalpa Pisavadia, Ned Hartfiel, Limssy Varghese, Anne Krayer, Gemma Hobson, Rebecca Masters, Rob Poole, Catherine Robinson, Rhiannon Tudor Edwards, Emily Bebbington

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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

10 authors.

Kalpa PisavadiaCentre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Bangor, UK Kalpa.pisavadia@bangor.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1435-163X
Ned HartfielCentre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
Limssy VargheseCentre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
Anne KrayerCentre for Mental Health and Society, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1503-1734
Gemma HobsonPublic Health Wales, NHS Wales, Cardiff, UK.
Rebecca MastersPublic Health Wales, NHS Wales, Cardiff, UK.
Rob PooleCentre for Mental Health and Society, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.
Catherine RobinsonSocial Care and Society, The University of Manchester Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health, Manchester, UK.
Rhiannon Tudor EdwardsCentre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4748-5730
Emily BebbingtonCentre for Mental Health and Society, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1332-7558

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionA clinical registry is a systematically collected database of health-specific information about a patient population. Clinical registries can be used for a variety of purposes including surveillance, monitoring of outcomes and patient care. The establishment and maintenance of clinical registries come with a significant cost. This scoping review aims to identify the methods used to economically evaluate clinical registries including their costs and benefits.

methodsThis systematic scoping review protocol has been developed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. The final review will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. The electronic databases Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and The Cumulative Index to Allied Health Literature(CINAHL) database will be searched. Relevant national organisation websites will be searched to identify empirical studies within grey literature. The inclusion criteria include studies that economically evaluate clinical registries and are published in the English language from inception to February 2025. Two reviewers will independently screen 100% of titles and abstracts and full texts of studies for inclusion. Data will be extracted from eligible studies prior to being assessed for quality using a multi-tool approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The findings of this review will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal. They are likely to be of interest to custodians of existing clinical registries and to those wishing to establish or evaluate clinical registries.

Indexed as

RegistriesCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansResearch DesignScoping Reviews as TopicHealthHEALTH ECONOMICSPUBLIC HEALTHREGISTRIES

Identifiers

PMID40555451
PMCPMC12198832

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.