ReviewThe Permanente journal2026
Leveraging Clinical Registries and Electronic Health Systems to Advance Value-Based Medicine Across Specialties.
Review in The Permanente journal, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Value-based medicine provides the potential framework for addressing the escalating costs of health care in the United States. Value includes patient outcomes and cost, and improving quality and/or reducing cost and maintaining quality increases health care value. Enhancing the quality of care for members leads to improved outcomes, reduced costs, and increased value. Implantable device registries and electronic health record systems support value-based medicine through identification of variations in care and clinical best practices, providing feedback on these clinical practices, and measuring the change in patient outcomes and cost savings. This article reviews a US integrated health system's experience with implant registries methods, outcomes, and cost savings. Evidence-based changes in surgical practice across multiple specialties resulted in substantial cost savings and maintained clinical outcomes. Key interventions included lowering allograft rates in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, reducing unnecessary use of bone morphogenetic protein in spine surgery, increasing rechargeable battery use in neurosurgery, increasing cemented fixation in hip fracture, expanding same-day discharge for joint arthroplasty, reducing antibiotic-laden cement in total knee arthroplasty, and improving endovascular aneurysm repair care management. These changes collectively saved hundreds of millions of dollars and enhanced and/or maintained quality of care.
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.