-
Medical Archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and... Dec 2020From 2013 the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki explicitly requires pre-registration of a study involving human subjects. The registration gives a...
BACKGROUND
From 2013 the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki explicitly requires pre-registration of a study involving human subjects. The registration gives a chance for improvement of design and avoidance of bias.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this article was to describe process of bearing decision to create regional registry of clinical studies for Balkan countries.
METHODS
After finding relevant studies about research registries and designing the concept and structure of future regional registry an article was published in IJBH journal. The article was than used as basis for discussion at 2020 meeting of Academy of Medical Sciences of Bosnia and Herzegovina (AMSBH), and final decision was made by the Academy to create the research registry.
RESULTS
Regional registry of clinical studies will be under the auspices of AMSBH and web-based, with the option of online registration of new studies. The data required to be entered in the moment of registration relate to key elements of research plan: topic, variables, sample, type of the study and the study population. After applying for registration of a clinical study, the authors will soon receive the review made by the AMSBH expert committee. The application could be accepted, rejected or returned for major or minor revision. After an application is accepted, it will be deposited in the searchable database and given the registration number.
CONCLUSION
The AMSBH's decision to create the regional registry of clinical studies will satisfy needs of researchers from Balkan countries in the first place, who share cultural and lingual similarities. It will also help with increasing standards of clinical research in the region.
Topics: Biomedical Research; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Clinical Studies as Topic; Guidelines as Topic; Humans; Registries
PubMed: 33603263
DOI: 10.5455/medarh.2020.74.412-415 -
Twin Research and Human Genetics : the... Dec 2019Much progress has been made in twin research since our last special issue on twin registries (Hur, Y.-M., & Craig, J. M. (2013). Twin Research and Human Genetics, 16,...
Much progress has been made in twin research since our last special issue on twin registries (Hur, Y.-M., & Craig, J. M. (2013). Twin Research and Human Genetics, 16, 1-12.). This special issue provides an update on the state of twin family registries around the world. This issue includes 61 papers on twin family registries from 25 countries, of which 3 describe consortia based on collaborations of several twin family registries. The articles included in this issue discuss the establishment and maintenance of twin registries, recruitment strategies, methods of zygosity assessment, research aims and major findings from twin family cohorts, as well as other important topics related to twin studies. The papers amount to approximately 1.3 million monozygotic, dizygotic twins and higher order multiples and their family members who participate in twin studies around the world. Nine new twin family registries have been established across the world since our last issue, which demonstrates that twin registers are increasingly important in studies of the determinants and correlates of complex traits from disease susceptibility to healthy development.
Topics: Biomedical Research; Diseases in Twins; Humans; Registries; Twin Studies as Topic; Twins, Dizygotic; Twins, Monozygotic
PubMed: 31937381
DOI: 10.1017/thg.2019.121 -
Epidemiology and Health 2018Stroke registries are observational databases focusing on the clinical information and outcomes of stroke patients. They play an important role in the cycle of quality... (Review)
Review
Stroke registries are observational databases focusing on the clinical information and outcomes of stroke patients. They play an important role in the cycle of quality improvement. Registry data are collected from real-world experiences of stroke care and are suitable for measuring quality of care. By exposing inadequacies in performance measures of stroke care, research from stroke registries has changed how we manage stroke patients in Taiwan. With the success of various quality improvement campaigns, mortality from stroke and recurrence of stroke have decreased in the past decade. After the implementation of a nationwide stroke registry, researchers have been creatively expanding how they use and collect registry data for research. Through the use of the nationwide stroke registry as a common data model, researchers from many hospitals have built their own stroke registries with extended data elements to meet the needs of research. In collaboration with information technology professionals, stroke registry systems have changed from web-based, manual submission systems to automated fill-in systems in some hospitals. Furthermore, record linkage between stroke registries and administrative claims databases or other existing databases has widened the utility of registry data in research. Using stroke registry data as the reference standard, researchers have validated several algorithms for ascertaining the diagnosis of stroke and its risk factors from claims data, and have also developed a claims-based index to estimate stroke severity. By making better use of registry data, we believe that we will provide better care to patients with stroke.
Topics: Biomedical Research; Forecasting; Humans; Registries; Stroke; Taiwan
PubMed: 29421864
DOI: 10.4178/epih.e2018004 -
PloS One 2022Population-based cancer registration methods are subject to internationally-established rules. To ensure efficient and effective case recording, population-based cancer...
Population-based cancer registration methods are subject to internationally-established rules. To ensure efficient and effective case recording, population-based cancer registries widely adopt digital processing (DP) methods. At the Veneto Tumor Registry (RTV), about 50% of all digitally-identified (putative) cases of cancer are further profiled by means of registrars' assessments (RAs). Taking these RAs for reference, the present study examines how well the registry's DP performs. A series of 1,801 (putative) incident and prevalent cancers identified using DP methods were randomly assigned to two experienced registrars (blinded to the DP output), who independently re-assessed every case. This study focuses on the concordance between the DP output and the RAs as concerns cancer status (incident versus prevalent), topography, and morphology. The RAs confirmed the cancer status emerging from DP for 1,266/1,317 incident cancers (positive predictive value [PPV] = 96.1%) and 460/472 prevalent cancers (PPV = 97.5%). This level of concordance ranks as "optimal", with a Cohen's K value of 0.91. The overall prevalence of false-positive cancer cases identified by DP was 2.9%, and was affected by the number of digital variables available. DP and the RAs were consistent in identifying cancer topography in 88.7% of cases; differences concerned different sites within the same anatomo-functional district (according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer [IARC]) in 9.6% of cases. In short, using DP for cancer case registration suffers from only trivial inconsistencies. The efficiency and reliability of digital cancer registration is influenced by the availability of good-quality clinical information, and the regular interdisciplinary monitoring of a registry's DP performance.
Topics: Humans; Reproducibility of Results; Neoplasms; Registries; Prevalence; Quality Control
PubMed: 36548228
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279415 -
Cancer Medicine Oct 2023Studies exploring whether metastatic organotropism and risk in gastric cancer (GC) differ by primary anatomical site are scarce.
BACKGROUND
Studies exploring whether metastatic organotropism and risk in gastric cancer (GC) differ by primary anatomical site are scarce.
METHODS
This study included 15,260 and 1623 patients diagnosed with GC from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry database and the Nanfang Hospital in China, respectively. Patients were stratified according to primary site of GC, and the incidence of metastasis to different organs was used to determine the metastatic organotropism for each GC subsite. Finally, the metastatic organotropism and risk were compared among the different subsite groups.
RESULTS
Liver metastasis was the most common metastasis site in cardia GC, whereas other-site metastases were more common in the body, antrum, overlapping lesions, and unspecified GCs. Liver and other-site metastases were also frequently observed in the fundus, pylorus, lesser curvature, and greater curvature GCs. Patients with GC with definite primary tumor sites in the SEER and validation Nanfang hospital cohorts were compared by grouping as proximal and distal GCs for further analysis. In the SEER cohort, the top three metastatic sites of proximal GC were liver (21.4%), distant lymph node (LN) (14.6%), and other-site (mainly peritoneum, 11.9%), whereas those of distal GC were other-site (mainly peritoneum, 19.5%), liver (11.8%), and distant LN (9.5%). The incidence of metastasis to the liver, distant LN, lung, and brain was significantly higher in patients with proximal GC than in those with distal GC in both the SEER and Nanfang cohorts (p < 0.05). However, metastasis to other-site/peritoneum was significantly lower in patients with proximal GC compared to those with distal GC in the Nanfang Hospital and SEER cohorts, respectively (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION
Liver and distant LN are the preferred metastatic sites for proximal GC, whereas peritoneal metastasis is more common in distal GC. Proximal GC has a higher risk of lymphatic and hematogenous metastases, and a lower risk of transcoelomic metastasis than distal GC. Our findings highlight the need to stratify GC by its primary subsite to aid in planning and decision-making related to metastatic management in clinical practice.
Topics: Humans; Cohort Studies; East Asian People; Prognosis; Registries; SEER Program; Stomach Neoplasms; United States; China
PubMed: 37740601
DOI: 10.1002/cam4.6583 -
Trials Jun 2020Traditional randomised controlled trials remain the gold standard for improving clinical care but they do have their limitations, including their associated high costs,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Traditional randomised controlled trials remain the gold standard for improving clinical care but they do have their limitations, including their associated high costs, high failure rate and limited external validity. An alternative methodology is the newly defined, prospective, registry-based randomised controlled trial (RRCT), where treatment and outcome data is collected in an existing registry. This scoping review explores the current literature regarding RRCTs to help identify the key design elements of RRCTs and the characteristics of clinical registries on which they are reliant on.
METHODS
A scoping review methodology conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines was performed. Four databases were searched for articles published from inception to June 2018: Medline; Embase; the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and; Scopus. The search strategy included MeSH and text words related to RRCT.
RESULTS
We identified 2369 articles of which 75 were selected for full-text screening. Of these, only 17 articles satisfied our inclusion criteria. All studies were published between 1996 and 2017 and all were investigator-initiated. Study designs were mainly multi-site comparative/effectiveness studies incorporating the use of disease registries (n = 8), procedure registries (n = 8) and a health services registry (n = 1). The low cost, reduced administrative burden and enhanced external validity of RRCTs make them an attractive research methodology which can be used to address questions of public health importance. We identified that that there are variable definitions of what constituted a RRCT and that issues related to ethical conduct and data integrity, completeness, timeliness, validation and endpoint adjudication need to be carefully addressed.
CONCLUSION
RRCTs potentially have an important role to play in informing best clinical practice and health policy. There are a number of issues that need to be addressed to optimise the utility of this approach, including establishing universally accepted criteria for the definition of a RRCT.
Topics: Humans; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Pragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic; Prospective Studies; Registries; Research Design
PubMed: 32571382
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-020-04459-z -
Systematic Reviews Jan 2022Prospective registration aims to reduce bias in the conduct and reporting of research and to increase transparency. In addition, prospective registration of systematic...
BACKGROUND
Prospective registration aims to reduce bias in the conduct and reporting of research and to increase transparency. In addition, prospective registration of systematic reviews is argued to help preventing unintended duplication, thereby reducing research waste. PROSPERO was launched in 2011 as the first prospective register for systematic reviews. While it has long been the only option to prospectively register systematic reviews, recently there have been new developments. Our aim was to identify and characterize current options to prospectively register a systematic review to assist review authors in choosing a suitable register.
METHODS
To identify systematic review registers, we independently performed internet searches in January 2021 using keywords related to systematic reviews and prospective registration. "Registration" was defined as the process of entering information about a planned systematic review into a database before starting the systematic review process. We collected data on the characteristics of the identified registries and contacted the responsible party of each register for verification of the data related to their registry.
RESULTS
Overall, we identified five options to prospectively register a systematic review: PROSPERO, the Registry of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses in Research Registry, and INPLASY, which are specific to systematic reviews, and the Open Science Framework Registries and protocols.io, which represent generic registers open to any study type. Detailed information on each register is presented in tables in the main text. Regarding the systematic-review-specific registries, authors have to trade-off between the costs of registration and the processing time of their registration record. All registers provide an option to search for systematic reviews already registered in the register. However, it is unclear how useful these search functions are.
CONCLUSION
Authors can prospectively register their systematic review in five registries, which come with different characteristics and features. The research community should discuss fair and sustainable financing models for registers that are not operated by for-profit organizations.
Topics: Humans; Databases, Factual; Registries; Research Design; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 34998432
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-021-01877-1 -
European Journal of Heart Failure May 2015
Topics: Heart Failure; Humans; Registries; Research Design
PubMed: 25851696
DOI: 10.1002/ejhf.264 -
Systematic Reviews Feb 2018The benefits of trauma registries have been well described. The crucial data they provide may guide injury prevention strategies, inform resource allocation, and support... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The benefits of trauma registries have been well described. The crucial data they provide may guide injury prevention strategies, inform resource allocation, and support advocacy and policy. This has been shown to reduce trauma-related mortality in various settings. Trauma remains a leading cause of mortality in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, the implementation of trauma registries in LMICs can be challenging due to lack of funding, specialized personnel, and infrastructure. This study explores strategies for successful trauma registry implementation in LMICs.
METHODS
The protocol was registered a priori (CRD42017058586). A peer-reviewed search strategy of multiple databases will be developed with a senior librarian. As per PRISMA guidelines, first screen of references based on abstract and title and subsequent full-text review will be conducted by two independent reviewers. Disagreements that cannot be resolved by discussion between reviewers shall be arbitrated by the principal investigator. Data extraction will be performed using a pre-defined data extraction sheet. Finally, bibliographies of included articles will be hand-searched. Studies of any design will be included if they describe or review development and implementation of a trauma registry in LMICs. No language or period restrictions will be applied. Summary statistics and qualitative meta-narrative analyses will be performed.
DISCUSSION
The significant burden of trauma in LMIC environments presents unique challenges and limitations. Adapted strategies for deployment and maintenance of sustainable trauma registries are needed. Our methodology will systematically identify recommendations and strategies for successful trauma registry implementation in LMICs and describe threats and barriers to this endeavor.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
The protocol was registered on the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews ( CRD42017058586 ).
Topics: Developing Countries; Health Plan Implementation; Humans; Registries; Wounds and Injuries
PubMed: 29467037
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-018-0700-2 -
Journal of Medical Toxicology :... Oct 2021The Toxicology Investigators Consortium (ToxIC) Registry was established by the American College of Medical Toxicology in 2010. The registry collects data from...
The Toxicology Investigators Consortium (ToxIC) Registry was established by the American College of Medical Toxicology in 2010. The registry collects data from participating sites with the agreement that all bedside and telehealth medical toxicology consultation will be entered. This eleventh annual report summarizes the Registry's 2020 data and activity with its additional 6668 cases. Cases were identified for inclusion in this report by a query of the ToxIC database for any case entered from January 1 to December 31, 2020. Detailed data was collected from these cases and aggregated to provide information which included demographics, reason for medical toxicology evaluation, agent and agent class, clinical signs and symptoms, treatments and antidotes administered, mortality, and whether life support was withdrawn. Gender distribution included 50.6% cases in females, 48.4% in males, and 1.0% identifying as transgender. Non-opioid analgesics were the most commonly reported agent class, followed by opioid and antidepressant classes. Acetaminophen was once again the most common agent reported. There were 80 fatalities, comprising 1.2% of all registry cases. Major trends in demographics and exposure characteristics remained similar to past years' reports. Sub-analyses were conducted to describe race and ethnicity demographics and exposures in the registry, telemedicine encounters, and cases related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; COVID-19; Canada; Congresses as Topic; Female; Hazardous Substances; Humans; Israel; Male; Middle Aged; Pandemics; Poisoning; Registries; Research Report; SARS-CoV-2; Thailand; Toxicology; United States
PubMed: 34535889
DOI: 10.1007/s13181-021-00854-3