Usage of orthopaedic trauma registries among members of the International Orthopaedic Trauma Association: How are we doing?
Abstract. Introduction: The use of national databases for orthopaedic research has increased significantly in the past decade. The purpose of this study was to report on the current state of orthopaedic trauma registries in 21 countries represented by 20 member societies of the International Orthopa...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wolters Kluwer
2022-12-01
|
| Series: | OTA International |
| Online Access: | http://journals.lww.com/10.1097/OI9.0000000000000224 |
| _version_ | 1797976881081876480 |
|---|---|
| author | Mai P. Nguyen, MD Thomas Z. Paull, MD Theodore Miclau, MD Meir T. Marmor, MD |
| author_facet | Mai P. Nguyen, MD Thomas Z. Paull, MD Theodore Miclau, MD Meir T. Marmor, MD |
| author_sort | Mai P. Nguyen, MD |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract. Introduction: The use of national databases for orthopaedic research has increased significantly in the past decade. The purpose of this study was to report on the current state of orthopaedic trauma registries in 21 countries represented by 20 member societies of the International Orthopaedic Trauma Association (IOTA).
Methods: A web-based survey was circulated to all IOTA member societies. The survey consisted of 10 questions (five open-ended and five multiple-choice).
Results: Representatives from all 21 countries replied. Five countries (24%) do not currently have or plan to start a registry. One country (5%) had a registry that is now closed. Two countries (10%) are building a registry. Thirteen countries (62%) reported at least one active registry, including four countries with more than one registry. Of the 14 countries that reported the existence of a registry, there were 17 registries noted that included patients with fracture. There were seven registries dedicated to high-energy trauma and four registries that included elderly hip fractures. In addition, 9/17 representatives reported the utilization of a fracture classification and 9/17 noted some level of mandate from medical providers. All responders but one reported that data were manually entered into their registries.
Conclusions: Despite the shared vision of quality control and outcome optimization, IOTA society representatives reported significant variability in the depth and format of the orthopaedic trauma registry among IOTA members. These findings represent an opportunity for collaboration across organizations in creating fracture registries.
Level of Evidence: Level IV. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-11T04:58:02Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-ca9e0caafc684317b3c576542ef224bd |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2574-2167 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-11T04:58:02Z |
| publishDate | 2022-12-01 |
| publisher | Wolters Kluwer |
| record_format | Article |
| series | OTA International |
| spelling | doaj.art-ca9e0caafc684317b3c576542ef224bd2022-12-26T06:06:21ZengWolters KluwerOTA International2574-21672022-12-0154e22410.1097/OI9.0000000000000224OI90000000000000224Usage of orthopaedic trauma registries among members of the International Orthopaedic Trauma Association: How are we doing?Mai P. Nguyen, MD0Thomas Z. Paull, MD1Theodore Miclau, MD2Meir T. Marmor, MD3a Regions Hospital, Saint Paul, MN,a Regions Hospital, Saint Paul, MN,c Orthopaedic Trauma Institute, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, University of California, San Francisco, CA.c Orthopaedic Trauma Institute, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, University of California, San Francisco, CA.Abstract. Introduction: The use of national databases for orthopaedic research has increased significantly in the past decade. The purpose of this study was to report on the current state of orthopaedic trauma registries in 21 countries represented by 20 member societies of the International Orthopaedic Trauma Association (IOTA). Methods: A web-based survey was circulated to all IOTA member societies. The survey consisted of 10 questions (five open-ended and five multiple-choice). Results: Representatives from all 21 countries replied. Five countries (24%) do not currently have or plan to start a registry. One country (5%) had a registry that is now closed. Two countries (10%) are building a registry. Thirteen countries (62%) reported at least one active registry, including four countries with more than one registry. Of the 14 countries that reported the existence of a registry, there were 17 registries noted that included patients with fracture. There were seven registries dedicated to high-energy trauma and four registries that included elderly hip fractures. In addition, 9/17 representatives reported the utilization of a fracture classification and 9/17 noted some level of mandate from medical providers. All responders but one reported that data were manually entered into their registries. Conclusions: Despite the shared vision of quality control and outcome optimization, IOTA society representatives reported significant variability in the depth and format of the orthopaedic trauma registry among IOTA members. These findings represent an opportunity for collaboration across organizations in creating fracture registries. Level of Evidence: Level IV.http://journals.lww.com/10.1097/OI9.0000000000000224 |
| spellingShingle | Mai P. Nguyen, MD Thomas Z. Paull, MD Theodore Miclau, MD Meir T. Marmor, MD Usage of orthopaedic trauma registries among members of the International Orthopaedic Trauma Association: How are we doing? OTA International |
| title | Usage of orthopaedic trauma registries among members of the International Orthopaedic Trauma Association: How are we doing? |
| title_full | Usage of orthopaedic trauma registries among members of the International Orthopaedic Trauma Association: How are we doing? |
| title_fullStr | Usage of orthopaedic trauma registries among members of the International Orthopaedic Trauma Association: How are we doing? |
| title_full_unstemmed | Usage of orthopaedic trauma registries among members of the International Orthopaedic Trauma Association: How are we doing? |
| title_short | Usage of orthopaedic trauma registries among members of the International Orthopaedic Trauma Association: How are we doing? |
| title_sort | usage of orthopaedic trauma registries among members of the international orthopaedic trauma association how are we doing |
| url | http://journals.lww.com/10.1097/OI9.0000000000000224 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT maipnguyenmd usageoforthopaedictraumaregistriesamongmembersoftheinternationalorthopaedictraumaassociationhowarewedoing AT thomaszpaullmd usageoforthopaedictraumaregistriesamongmembersoftheinternationalorthopaedictraumaassociationhowarewedoing AT theodoremiclaumd usageoforthopaedictraumaregistriesamongmembersoftheinternationalorthopaedictraumaassociationhowarewedoing AT meirtmarmormd usageoforthopaedictraumaregistriesamongmembersoftheinternationalorthopaedictraumaassociationhowarewedoing |