Clinical registries in orthopaedic surgery provide robust variables for patient outcome surveillance, despite weaknesses like smaller patient numbers and inconstant follow-up.
The use of large-scale national databases for observational research in orthopaedic surgery has grown substantially in the last decade, and the data sets can be categorized as either administrative claims or clinical registries. Clinical registries contain secondary data on patients with a specific diagnosis or procedure. The data are typically used for patient outcome surveillance to improve patient safety and health-care quality. Registries used in orthopaedic research exist at the regional, national, and international levels, and many were designed to specifically collect outcomes relevant to orthopaedics, such as short-term surgical complications, longer-term outcomes (implant survival or reoperations), and patient-reported outcomes. Although heterogeneous, clinical registries-in contrast to claims data-typically have a more robust list of variables, with relatively precise prospective data input, management infrastructure, and reporting systems. Some weaknesses of clinical registries include a smaller number of patients, inconstant follow-up duration, and use of sampling methods that may limit generalizability. Within the U.S., national joint registry adoption has lagged international joint registries. Given the changing health-care environment, it is likely that clinical registries will provide valuable information that has the potential to influence clinical practice improvement and health-care policy in the future.
Pugely et al. (Wed,) conducted a review in Orthopaedic surgery. Clinical registries in orthopaedic surgery provide robust variables for patient outcome surveillance, despite weaknesses like smaller patient numbers and inconstant follow-up.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: