Institutional arthroplasty registry: what is the minimum acceptable dataset to be included in your hospital? Recommendations from a single-country national consensus using the Delphi method

Bonilla, Guillermo; Montoya, Beatriz E; Restrepo, Victoria E; Gómez, Miguel M.; Sánchez, Alfredo A; Sánchez, José Ignacio López; Rodríguez, Hugo A.; Rincón, Jairo A; Solano, Antonio L; Cardona, Diego; Martínez, Saúl L; López, Alejandro; Moore, Jose L; Surgeons, Knee

doi:10.1007/s00264-020-04866-6

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…St Michael’s HS [ 611 , 433 ] 2. Toronto Western HS [ 15 , 40 , 48 – 50 , 54 , 68 , 107 , 603 , 411 , 456 ] Winnpeg University of Manitoba [ 300 , 366 , 477 , 487 , 492 ] South America Colombia Bogota HS Universitario Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá [ 220 , 291 , 376 , 615 ] United States of America California 1. CJRR [ 146 , 150 , 215 , 317 , 353 , 365 ] 2.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global mapping of institutional and hospital-based (Level II–IV) arthroplasty registries: a scoping review

Zgouridou,

Kenanidis,

Potoupnis

et al. 2023

Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Four joint arthroplasty registries (JARs) levels exist based on the recorded data type. Level I JARs are national registries that record primary data. Hospital or institutional JARs (Level II–IV) document further data (patient-reported outcomes, demographic, radiographic). A worldwide list of Level II–IV JARs must be created to effectively assess and categorize these data. Methods Our study is a systematic scoping review that followed the PRISMA guidelines and included 648 studies. Based on their publications, the study aimed to map the existing Level II–IV JARs worldwide. The secondary aim was to record their lifetime, publications’ number and frequency and recognise differences with national JARs. Results One hundred five Level II–IV JARs were identified. Forty-eight hospital-based, 45 institutional, and 12 regional JARs. Fifty JARs were found in America, 39 in Europe, nine in Asia, six in Oceania and one in Africa. They have published 485 cohorts, 91 case-series, 49 case–control, nine cross-sectional studies, eight registry protocols and six randomized trials. Most cohort studies were retrospective. Twenty-three per cent of papers studied patient-reported outcomes, 21.45% surgical complications, 13.73% postoperative clinical and 5.25% radiographic outcomes, and 11.88% were survival analyses. Forty-four JARs have published only one paper. Level I JARs primarily publish implant revision risk annual reports, while Level IV JARs collect comprehensive data to conduct retrospective cohort studies. Conclusions This is the first study mapping all Level II–IV JARs worldwide. Most JARs are found in Europe and America, reporting on retrospective cohorts, but only a few report on studies systematically.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global mapping of institutional and hospital-based (Level II–IV) arthroplasty registries: a scoping review

Zgouridou,

Kenanidis,

Potoupnis

et al. 2023

Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…c. Optional: The CDE should be collected for specific research projects only. Based on published reports from similar clinical modified Delphi processes, 16,17 we set the level of agreement at 75% or higher. If no consensus on parts 2 to 3 (answer format and level of requirement) could be reached during a survey round, the most frequently selected answer from the previous round was presented.…”

Section: Consensus Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consensus Minimal Dataset for Pediatric Emergency Medicine in Switzerland

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesStandardized, harmonized data sets generated through routine clinical and administrative documentation can greatly accelerate the generation of evidence to improve patient care. The objective of this study was to define a pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) minimal dataset for Switzerland (Swiss PEM minimal dataset) and to contribute a subspecialty module to a national pediatric data harmonization process (SwissPedData).MethodsWe completed a modified Delphi survey, inviting experts from all major Swiss pediatric emergency departments (PEDs).ResultsTwelve experts from 10 Swiss PEDs, through 3 Delphi survey rounds and a moderated e-mail discussion, suggested a subspecialty module for PEM to complement the newly developed SwissPedData main common data model (CDM). The PEM subspecialty CDM contains 28 common data elements (CDEs) specific to PEM. Additional CDEs cover PEM-specific admission processes (type of arrival), timestamps (time of death), greater details on investigations and treatments received at the PED, and PEM procedures (eg, procedural sedation). In addition to the 28 CDEs specific to PEM, 43 items from the SwissPedData main CDM were selected to create a Swiss PEM minimal dataset. The final Swiss PEM minimal dataset was similar in scope and content to the registry of the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network.ConclusionsA practical minimal dataset for PEM in Switzerland was developed through recognized consensus methodology. The Swiss PEM minimal dataset developed by Swiss PEM experts will facilitate international data sharing for PEM research and quality improvement projects.

show abstract

Institutional arthroplasty registry: what is the minimum acceptable dataset to be included in your hospital? Recommendations from a single-country national consensus using the Delphi method

Cited by 2 publications

References 19 publications

Global mapping of institutional and hospital-based (Level II–IV) arthroplasty registries: a scoping review

Global mapping of institutional and hospital-based (Level II–IV) arthroplasty registries: a scoping review

Consensus Minimal Dataset for Pediatric Emergency Medicine in Switzerland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About