ArticleCritical care science2026
Characteristics of intensive care unit registries - findings from the Global Registry ICU Datasets (GRID) survey.
Article in Critical care science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the SMS-ICU score for multicontinental use: A federated external validation study using critical care registry data.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2026Article
- Towards a common core dataset for critical care: a registry-centered vision for global improvement.Critical care science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
41 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntensive care unit registries, which aim to improve the quality of intensive care unit care through benchmarking and quality improvement initiatives, are active worldwide, with considerable dishomogeneity. We aimed to map core datasets, additional variables, and research activities of these registries.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was disseminated to registry leads between October 2023 and June 2024. The survey was structured into four main topics: registry characteristics and coverage, core dataset features, additional modules, and registry-enabled research.
resultsLeads of 34/42 national registries responded (response rate 81%), covering 3,337 intensive care units, with a larger representation from South America. Systematized nomenclature of medicine, clinical terms, and customized categorical classifications were the main nomenclatures used. All registries except one employed a severity of illness score/risk prediction model. The SOFA score was reported by 88% of registries. Organ support measures were often recorded, including mechanical ventilation (97%), vasopressor administration (86%) and renal replacement therapy (86%). Three out of four intensive care unit registries coded interventions such as intubations, intravenous lines and tracheostomies. Additional datasets differed, with many use cases for nosocomial infection burden, bed availability and staffing resources. Over half of intensive care unit registries had current structured quality improvement initiatives. Registry-enabled observational research was reported in 46% of registries, while interventional studies were reported in only 22%.
conclusionOver three thousand intensive care units in 35 countries participate in an intensive care unit registry. Despite heterogeneity in coding systems, risk models, and additional datasets, we identify several areas of convergence that may inform a future shared core dataset. There is potential for further intensive care unit registry-based research, particularly interventional.
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.