ArticleBMJ open2025
The emerging economic evidence and methods used to evaluate clinical registries: a systematic scoping review protocol.
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.
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.
- Self-harm and Violence Presenting to Emergency Care Registry (SAVER) project: protocol for a mixed-methods study.BMJ open quality · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.