A review of national shoulder and elbow joint replacement registries.
BACKGROUND: The aim was to review the funding, organization, data handling, outcome measurements, and findings from existing national shoulder and elbow joint replacement registries; to consider the possibility of pooling data between registries; and to consider wether a pan european registry might...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2012
|
| _version_ | 1797054299796144128 |
|---|---|
| author | Rasmussen, J Olsen, B Fevang, B Furnes, O Skytta, E Rahme, H Salomonsson, B Mohammed, K Page, R Carr, A |
| author_facet | Rasmussen, J Olsen, B Fevang, B Furnes, O Skytta, E Rahme, H Salomonsson, B Mohammed, K Page, R Carr, A |
| author_sort | Rasmussen, J |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | BACKGROUND: The aim was to review the funding, organization, data handling, outcome measurements, and findings from existing national shoulder and elbow joint replacement registries; to consider the possibility of pooling data between registries; and to consider wether a pan european registry might be feasible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Web sites, annual reports, and publications from ongoing national registries were searched using Google, PubMed, and links from other registries. Representatives from each registry were contacted. RESULTS: Between 1994 and 2004, 6 shoulder registries and 5 elbow registries were established, and by the end of 2009, the shoulder registries included between 2498 and 7113 replacements and the elbow registries between 267 and 1457 replacements. The registries were initiated by orthopedic societies and funded by the government or by levies on implant manufacturers. In some countries, data reporting and patient consent are required. Completeness is assessed by comparing data with the national health authority. All registries use implant survival as the primary outcome. Some registries use patient-reported outcomes as a secondary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: A registry offers many advantages; however, adequate long-term funding and completeness remain a challenge. It is unlikely that large-scale international registries can be implemented, but more countries should be encouraged to establish registries and, by adopting compatible processes, data could be pooled between national registries, adding considerably to their power and usefulness. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T18:55:17Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:119f9d6f-31b1-4f89-a2da-0c0dfc3668fa |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T18:55:17Z |
| publishDate | 2012 |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:119f9d6f-31b1-4f89-a2da-0c0dfc3668fa2022-03-26T10:03:22ZA review of national shoulder and elbow joint replacement registries.Journal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:119f9d6f-31b1-4f89-a2da-0c0dfc3668faEnglishSymplectic Elements at Oxford2012Rasmussen, JOlsen, BFevang, BFurnes, OSkytta, ERahme, HSalomonsson, BMohammed, KPage, RCarr, A BACKGROUND: The aim was to review the funding, organization, data handling, outcome measurements, and findings from existing national shoulder and elbow joint replacement registries; to consider the possibility of pooling data between registries; and to consider wether a pan european registry might be feasible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Web sites, annual reports, and publications from ongoing national registries were searched using Google, PubMed, and links from other registries. Representatives from each registry were contacted. RESULTS: Between 1994 and 2004, 6 shoulder registries and 5 elbow registries were established, and by the end of 2009, the shoulder registries included between 2498 and 7113 replacements and the elbow registries between 267 and 1457 replacements. The registries were initiated by orthopedic societies and funded by the government or by levies on implant manufacturers. In some countries, data reporting and patient consent are required. Completeness is assessed by comparing data with the national health authority. All registries use implant survival as the primary outcome. Some registries use patient-reported outcomes as a secondary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: A registry offers many advantages; however, adequate long-term funding and completeness remain a challenge. It is unlikely that large-scale international registries can be implemented, but more countries should be encouraged to establish registries and, by adopting compatible processes, data could be pooled between national registries, adding considerably to their power and usefulness. |
| spellingShingle | Rasmussen, J Olsen, B Fevang, B Furnes, O Skytta, E Rahme, H Salomonsson, B Mohammed, K Page, R Carr, A A review of national shoulder and elbow joint replacement registries. |
| title | A review of national shoulder and elbow joint replacement registries. |
| title_full | A review of national shoulder and elbow joint replacement registries. |
| title_fullStr | A review of national shoulder and elbow joint replacement registries. |
| title_full_unstemmed | A review of national shoulder and elbow joint replacement registries. |
| title_short | A review of national shoulder and elbow joint replacement registries. |
| title_sort | review of national shoulder and elbow joint replacement registries |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT rasmussenj areviewofnationalshoulderandelbowjointreplacementregistries AT olsenb areviewofnationalshoulderandelbowjointreplacementregistries AT fevangb areviewofnationalshoulderandelbowjointreplacementregistries AT furneso areviewofnationalshoulderandelbowjointreplacementregistries AT skyttae areviewofnationalshoulderandelbowjointreplacementregistries AT rahmeh areviewofnationalshoulderandelbowjointreplacementregistries AT salomonssonb areviewofnationalshoulderandelbowjointreplacementregistries AT mohammedk areviewofnationalshoulderandelbowjointreplacementregistries AT pager areviewofnationalshoulderandelbowjointreplacementregistries AT carra areviewofnationalshoulderandelbowjointreplacementregistries AT rasmussenj reviewofnationalshoulderandelbowjointreplacementregistries AT olsenb reviewofnationalshoulderandelbowjointreplacementregistries AT fevangb reviewofnationalshoulderandelbowjointreplacementregistries AT furneso reviewofnationalshoulderandelbowjointreplacementregistries AT skyttae reviewofnationalshoulderandelbowjointreplacementregistries AT rahmeh reviewofnationalshoulderandelbowjointreplacementregistries AT salomonssonb reviewofnationalshoulderandelbowjointreplacementregistries AT mohammedk reviewofnationalshoulderandelbowjointreplacementregistries AT pager reviewofnationalshoulderandelbowjointreplacementregistries AT carra reviewofnationalshoulderandelbowjointreplacementregistries |