The rise of registry-based research: a bibliometric analysis

Romanini, Emilio; Schettini, Irene; Torre, Marina; Venosa, Michele; Tarantino, Alessio; Calvisi, Vittorio; Zanoli, Gustavo

doi:10.1080/17453674.2021.1937459

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…20 These publications are more often cited than reports of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), 21 and appear in journals of comparable scientific impact. [20][21][22] In their bibliographic analysis, Romanini et al 20 reported that 22% of the 50 most cited registry publications appeared in 'big five' journals and that the UK was the most productive international collaborator and publisher within these 50 papers. This suggests that as well as an increase in the quantity of these papers, we have also seen an increase in quality alongside an understanding of the strengths of this type of observational research.…”

Section: Registry-based Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, it should be recognized that the most impactful registry research is usually produced by large research teams with experience in the interpretation and statistical analysis of these datasets. 20,21 These groups often have access to allied databases that can be linked to the registry datasets to provide a broader range of outcomes and greater data granularity. This has helped to drive improvements in research outputs from registries over the last decade.…”

Section: Manpower and Time Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…19 Over the last 20 years, there has been an exponential increase in publications from registries. 20 These publications are more often cited than reports of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), 21 and appear in journals of comparable scientific impact. [20][21][22] In their bibliographic analysis, Romanini et al 20 reported that 22% of the 50 most cited registry publications appeared in 'big five' journals and that the UK was the most productive international collaborator and publisher within these 50 papers.…”

Section: Registry-based Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The value of national arthroplasty registry data in 2023

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The importance of registries has been brought into focus by recent UK national reports focusing on implant (Cumberlege) and surgeon (Paterson) performance. National arthroplasty registries provide real-time, real-world information about implant, hospital, and surgeon performance and allow case identification in the event of product recall or adverse surgical outcomes. They are a valuable resource for research and service improvement given the volume of data recorded and the longitunidal nature of data collection. This review discusses the current value of registry data as it relates to both clinical practice and research.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(4):356–360.

show abstract

Section: Registry-based Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Manpower and Time Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Registry-based Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The value of national arthroplasty registry data in 2023

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fracture remained the most common article designation for papers published since 2000, indicating little change over time. Previous bibliometric analyses have been performed within various orthopedic subspecialties and have assessed content domains [ 11 - 24 ]. Similar to our findings, Huo et al noted that fracture was the most common topic appearing within the 50 most cited articles in elbow surgery [ 23 ].…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of the Most Frequently Cited Articles in Hand and Wrist Surgery: A Modern Reading List

Delma¹,

Ozdag²,

Warnick³

et al. 2022

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this investigation was to analyze the 50 most frequently cited articles on hand and wrist surgery of all time and those published during the 21 st century. We aimed to evaluate the article, author, and journal characteristics for these publications in order to create a modern reading list of impactful upper-extremity articles.A search of the Journal Citation Reports 2022 edition to identify journals containing possible hand or wristrelated articles was performed. Related journals were identified and then searched on the Web of Science database to identify hand and wrist articles. The top 50 most cited articles overall and the top 50 most cited articles from 2000-2021 were identified and indexed. Several bibliometric parameters, such as study type, study topic, study design, level of evidence, citation count, citation density, the institution of the lead author, the gender of lead and senior authors, and country were analyzed.For the most cited articles of all time, the number of citations ranged from 224 to 1109 with a mean of 368 citations and 15.0 citation density. Citations for the top 50 articles from 2000-2021 ranged from 153 to 950 with a mean of 233 citations and 14.5 citation density. For both groups, the most common level of evidence was level IV (33% and 27%). No correlation between journal impact factor and citation count or citation density was found. In both groups, "fracture" was the most common topic and papers were predominantly written by male authors.Frequently cited publications on hand and wrist surgery are often clinical papers that contain low levels of evidence and tend to focus on topics related to fracture care. Female authors remain underrepresented.

show abstract

“…Although registries were initially established to identify poorly performing prostheses 2 , their importance has evolved, and many now provide extensive information about surgeon, patient, and prosthesis-related variables and their association with arthroplasty outcomes 3,4 . This has allowed registries to improve patient outcomes, safety, and academic research 5,6 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of Data Collection by National Joint Replacement Registries

Hoskins,

Bingham,

Vince

2023

JBJS Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: National joint replacement registries assist surgeons and hospitals with guiding decision making and quality of care. The data points collected are essential to interpret and analyze data and to understand confounding variables and other sources of bias, which can impair retrospective observational research. The aim of this study was to review all national joint replacement registries to assess what data points are recorded, and in what manner, for primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) so that improvements can be made to enhance data collection, interpretation, and analysis. Methods: All national registries were identified through Internet and publication search and contacted to invite participation. Data collection forms for both primary and revision THA and TKA were requested. Data collected were entered into an Excel spreadsheet. Results: The study group for primary and revision THA consisted of 28 national registries, with 26 agreeing to participate. The study group for primary TKA consisted of 27 national registries, with 24 agreeing to participate. Patient identification details were recorded uniformly. Only a minority recorded patient details beyond American Society of Anesthesiologists and body mass index. Most registries did not record surgeon variables: who actually performed or assisted the procedure and their level of training. There was variation in the degree of detail recorded for diagnosis, mostly regarding secondary causes of osteoarthritis and fracture. The details regarding case complexity were limited. Half recorded previous operations, and fewer recorded bone defects. The location of knee arthritis, preoperative limb alignment, and deformities were rarely recorded. Surgical approach and technological adjuncts were routinely collected, but few other details on the surgical technique were recorded. Implant details and fixation were uniformly collected, although a minority recorded specific details, including cement antibiotic or cementing technique. It was uncommon to record whether additional or adjunctive procedures were concurrently performed. Approximately half the registries lacked a revision specific form. The majority recorded reoperations in addition to revision procedures. Patient, surgeon, case, and postoperative details were recorded similar to primary procedures. There was variation in the degree of details recorded for the reasons underlying the revision +/− reoperation, with most recording greater detail for infection and fracture. Many included details on case complexity and bone defects, including the severity, classification, and how the defect was managed. The majority recorded the specific revision procedure that was performed (total or partial), the fixation used, and the components removed or revised. Other specific aspects of fixation including acetabular screws, cone or sleeve use, stems, and augments were less commonly recorded. Conclusion: Substantial data are recorded by all registries, although each one is different. Data solicited lack many patient factors, surgeon variables, case complexity, and surgical techniques. Separate revision forms are not universal, and many registries do not record reoperation procedures, specific causes of revision, and the revision construct. Level of Evidence: Level II, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

show abstract

The rise of registry-based research: a bibliometric analysis

Cited by 12 publications

References 25 publications

The value of national arthroplasty registry data in 2023

The value of national arthroplasty registry data in 2023

Analysis of the Most Frequently Cited Articles in Hand and Wrist Surgery: A Modern Reading List

A Systematic Review of Data Collection by National Joint Replacement Registries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About