TY - JOUR
T1 - Prevalence and data transparency of national clinical registries in the United States
AU - Lyu, Heather
AU - Cooper, Michol
AU - Patel, Kavita
AU - Daniel, Michael
AU - Makary, Martin A
PY - 2016/8/1
Y1 - 2016/8/1
N2 - Objective: To determine the prevalence and characteristics of national clinical registries. Methods: Review of clinical registries through the following: (1) PubMed search using MeSH term "registries," (2) clinical trials database search using the term "registry," (3) review of the American Medical Association (AMA) recognized specialty societies for registry affiliation, and (4) consultation with a panel representing the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). Main Outcome Measures: Outcomes that characterize registries (type, participants, specialty affiliation, funding), reflect data quality (risk adjustment, auditing practices), and indicate transparency (public reporting). Results: We identified 153 clinical registries of which 47.7% (73) were health services registries, 43.1% (66) were disease registries, and 9.2% (14) were combination registries. The mean number of hospitals per registry was 1,693 (interquartile range [IQR] = 45-230), and the mean number of patients per registry was 1,160,492 (IQR = 2,150-10,045). Among the 117 AMA specialty societies, 16.2% (19) were affiliated with a registry. Government funding was associated with 26.1% (40/153) of registries. Of the 153 registries, 23.5% (36) risk adjusted outcomes and 18.3% (23) audited data. Mandatory public reporting of hospital outcomes for all participating hospitals was associated with 2.0% (3/153) of registries. Conclusion: There is substantial opportunity to develop more specialty-specific clinical registries with publicly available data.
AB - Objective: To determine the prevalence and characteristics of national clinical registries. Methods: Review of clinical registries through the following: (1) PubMed search using MeSH term "registries," (2) clinical trials database search using the term "registry," (3) review of the American Medical Association (AMA) recognized specialty societies for registry affiliation, and (4) consultation with a panel representing the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). Main Outcome Measures: Outcomes that characterize registries (type, participants, specialty affiliation, funding), reflect data quality (risk adjustment, auditing practices), and indicate transparency (public reporting). Results: We identified 153 clinical registries of which 47.7% (73) were health services registries, 43.1% (66) were disease registries, and 9.2% (14) were combination registries. The mean number of hospitals per registry was 1,693 (interquartile range [IQR] = 45-230), and the mean number of patients per registry was 1,160,492 (IQR = 2,150-10,045). Among the 117 AMA specialty societies, 16.2% (19) were affiliated with a registry. Government funding was associated with 26.1% (40/153) of registries. Of the 153 registries, 23.5% (36) risk adjusted outcomes and 18.3% (23) audited data. Mandatory public reporting of hospital outcomes for all participating hospitals was associated with 2.0% (3/153) of registries. Conclusion: There is substantial opportunity to develop more specialty-specific clinical registries with publicly available data.
KW - registry transparency public reporting
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84985996037&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84985996037&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Article
C2 - 26042745
AN - SCOPUS:84985996037
VL - 38
SP - 223
EP - 234
JO - Journal of quality assurance : a publication of the National Association of Quality Assurance Professionals
JF - Journal of quality assurance : a publication of the National Association of Quality Assurance Professionals
SN - 1062-2551
IS - 4
ER -