ReviewOrphanet journal of rare diseases2026
A practical framework to approach the development and evaluation of patient registries for rare diseases.
Review in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient registries are essential to rare disease research, but the implementation and maintenance of a registry requires substantial investments. Despite the large number of rare disease communities that currently have, or are planning for, a registry, there is little guidance on if and when a rare disease registry should be established. There is also little guidance on how to articulate registry objectives to address current and evolving scientific and community needs. MAIN BODY: A practical framework is needed to assist rare disease registry stakeholders to understand and prioritize registry objectives and requirements for registry design, data collection, and funding. In this review, we synthesize existing patient registry classifications and prior reports of rare disease registry experience into a unified framework characterizing rare disease registries by their types of research questions and scientific needs.
conclusionThis simple framework can be used to help rare disease communities identify their research requirements, and support decision making around whether to initiate, and how invest in, registry infrastructure.
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.