Abstract
Patient registries are essential tools for public health surveillance and research inquiry, and are a particularly important resource for understanding rare diseases. Registries provide consistent data for defined populations and can support the study of the distribution and determinants of various diseases. One advantage of registries is the ability to observe caseload and population characteristics over time, which might facilitate the evaluation of disease incidence, disease etiology, planning, operation and evaluation of services, evaluation of treatment patterns, and diagnostic classification. Any registry program must collect high quality data to be useful for its stated purpose. Registries can be developed for many different needs, and caution should be taken in interpreting registry data, which has inherent biases. We describe the methodological issues, limitations, and ideal features of registries to support various rare disease purposes. The future impact of registries on our understanding and interventions for rare diseases will depend upon technological and political solutions for global cooperation to achieve consistent data (via standards) and regulations for various registry applications.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
AHRQ (2007) Registries for evaluating patient outcomes: a user’s guide. In: Gliklich RE, Dreyer N (eds) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD
Andrews JE, Richesson RL, Krischer JP (2007) Variation of SNOMED CT coding of clinical research concepts among coding experts. J Am Med Inform Assoc 14:497–506
Bakken S, Cimino JJ, Haskell R, Kukafka R, Matsumoto C, Chan GK, Huff SM (2000) Evaluation of the clinical LOINC (logical observation identifiers, names, and codes) semantic structure as a terminology model for standardized assessment measures. J Am Med Inform Assoc 7(6):529–538
Bellows MT (1949) Case registers. Public Health Rep 64(36):1148–1158
Brooke EM (1974) The current and future use of registers in health information systems. World Health Organization http://whqlibdoc.who.int/offset/WHO_OFFSET_8.pdf
Brooks JM, Chrischilles E, Scott S, Ritho J, Chen-Hardee S (2000) Information gained from linking SEER cancer registry data to state-level hospital discharge abstracts. Surveillance, epidemiology, and end results. Med Care 38(11):1131–1140
Carter J, Evans J, Tuttle M, Weida T, White T, Harvell J, Shipley S (2006) Making the "minimum data set" compliant with health information technology standards. Executive summary. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/reports/2006/MDS-HITes.htm, Accessed: 2nd September, 2009
CHI (2006) Consolidated health informatics. Standards adoption recommendation. functioning and disability. Consolidated health informatics http://www.ncvhs.hhs.gov/061128lt.pdf, Accessed: 2nd September, 2009
Cochi SL, Edmonds LE, Dyer K, Greaves WL, Marks JS, Rovira EZ, Preblud SR, Orenstein WA (1989) Congenital rubella syndrome in the United States, 1970–1985. On the verge of elimination. Am J Epidemiol 129(2):349–361
Drolet BC, Johnson KB (2008) Categorizing the world of registries. J Biomed Inform 41(6):1009–1020
Duchenne Connect (2009) Duchenne Connect Research
EMA (2002) ICH Topic E 6 (R1) Guideline for good clinical practice; CPMP/ICH/135/95. In: European Medicines Agency, p. 59
EPPOSI (2009) EPPOSI Workshop on Patients Registries for Rare Disorders. European Platform for Patients’ Organisations, Sciences and Industry. http://rbdd.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=102, Accessed: 2nd September, 2009
FDA (2002) Guidance for industry. Establishing pregnancy exposure registries http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/WomensHealthResearch/UCM133332.pdf, Accessed: 2nd September, 2009
FDA (2007) Guidance for industry and FDA Staff. Procedures for handling post-approval studies imposed by PMA order http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm071013.pdf, Accessed: 2nd September, 2009
Feero WG, Bigley MB, Brinner KM (2008) New standards and enhanced utility for family health history information in the electronic health record: an update from the American Health Information Community’s Family Health History Multi-Stakeholder Workgroup. J Am Med Inform Assoc 15(6):723–728
Fridsma DB, Evans J, Hastak S, Mead CN (2008) The BRIDG project: a technical report. J Am Med Inform Assoc 15(2):130–137
Godard B, Schmidtke J, Cassiman JJ, Ayme S (2003) Data storage and DNA banking for biomedical research: informed consent, confidentiality, quality issues, ownership, return of benefits. A professional perspective. Eur J Hum Genet 11(Suppl 2):S88–S122
Goldberg J, Gelfand HM, Levy PS (1980) Registry evaluation methods: a review and case study. Epidemiol Rev 2:210–220
Green SB, Byar DP (1984) Using observational data from registries to compare treatments: the fallacy of omnimetrics. Stat Med 3(4):361–373
Groth-Petersen E, Knudsen J, Wilbek E (1959) Epidemiological basis of tuberculosis eradication in an advanced country. Bull World Health Organ 21:5–49
Irgens LM, Bjerkedal T (1973) Epidemiology of leprosy in Norway: the history of The National Leprosy Registry of Norway from 1856 until today. Int J Epidemiol 2(1):81–89
McNally RJ, Alston RD, Cairns DP, Eden OB, Birch JM (2003) Geographical and ecological analyses of childhood acute leukaemias and lymphomas in north-west England. Br J Haematol 123(1):60–65
Miettinen OS (1983) The need for randomization in the study of intended effects. Stat Med 2(2):267–271
Murff HJ, Spigel DR, Syngal S (2004) Does this patient have a family history of cancer? An evidence-based analysis of the accuracy of family cancer history. JAMA 292(12):1480–1489
Nadkarni PM, Brandt CA (2006) The common data elements for cancer research: remarks on functions and structure. Methods Inf Med 45(6):594–601
Parkin DM (2006) The evolution of the population-based cancer registry. Nature Rev 6:603–612
Pedersen E (1962) Some uses of the cancer registry in cancer control. Br J Prev Soc Med. 16:105–110
Richesson RL, Andrews JE, Krischer JP (2006) Use of SNOMED CT to represent clinical research data: a semantic characterization of data items on case report forms in vasculitis research. J Am Med Inform Assoc 13:536–546
Richesson RL, Krischer JP (2007) Data standards in clinical research: gaps, overlaps, challenges and future directions. J Am Med Inform Assoc 14(6):687–696
Rockette HE, Redmond CK, Fisher B (1982) Impact of randomized clinical trials on therapy of primary breast cancer: the NSABP overview. Control Clin Trials 3(3):209–225
Rothman K, Greenland S (1998) Modern epidemiology, 2nd edn. Lippincott-Raven, Hagerstown MD
Schlesselman JJ (1982) Case-control studies: design, conduct and analysis. Oxford University Press, New York
Sekar CC, Denming WE (1949) On a method of estimating birth and death rates and extent of registration. J Am Stat Assoc 44:101–115
Sekar CC, Deming WE (2004) On a method of estimating birth and death rates and the extent of registration (excerpt). Am Stat 58(1):13–15
Solomon DJ, Henry RC, Hogan JG, Van Amburg GH, Taylor J (1991) Evaluation and implementation of public health registries. Public Health Rep 106(2):142–150
Sweeney L (1997) Weaving technology and policy together to maintain confidentiality. J Law Med Ethics 25(2–3):98–110
Sweeney L (2005) Privacy-preserving surveillance using databases from daily life. IEEE Intelligent Syst 20(5)
The Genetic Alliance (2009) Discovering openness in health systems. In the Genetic Alliance 2009 Annual Conference. Bethesda, MD
Tilling K (2001) Capture-recapture methods – useful or misleading? Int J Epidemiol 30(1):12–14
TREAT-NMD (2009) TREAT-NMD Neuromuscular Network. http://www.treat-nmd.eu/home.php
USPHS (1969) The Automation of rheumatic fever registries; report of a seminar, May 21 and 22, 1968. Public Health Service, United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare. http://lccn.loc.gov/73604316, Accessed: 2nd September, 2009
Warren JL, Klabunde CN, Schrag D, Bach PB, Riley GF (2002) Overview of the SEER-Medicare data: content, research applications, and generalizability to the United States elderly population. Med Care. 40(8 Suppl):IV-3–IV-18
Weddell JM (1973) Registers and registries: a review. Int J Epidemiol 2(3):221–228
White T (2004) Update on survey instruments and questions. Clinical LOINC® Meeting. Salt Lake City. UT
WHO (1967) Epidemiological methods in the study of chronic diseases. Eleventh Report of the WHO Expert Committee on Health Statistics http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_365.pdf
Wirth HE, Locke BZ (1957) Analyzing the tuberculosis case register. Public Health Rep 72(2):151–157
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Richesson, R., Vehik, K. (2010). Patient Registries: Utility, Validity and Inference. In: Posada de la Paz, M., Groft, S. (eds) Rare Diseases Epidemiology. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, vol 686. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9485-8_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9485-8_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-9484-1
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-9485-8
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)