Tim Mathes1, Stefanie Buehn2, Peggy Prengel2, Dawid Pieper2. 1. Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Chair of Surgical Research, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109 Cologne, Germany. Electronic address: tim.mathes@uni-wh.de. 2. Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Chair of Surgical Research, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109 Cologne, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to analyze the features of registry-based randomized trials (rRCTs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We systematically searched PubMed for rRCTs. Study selection was performed independently by two reviewers. We extracted all data in standardized tables and prepared descriptive summary statistics. RESULTS: The search resulted in 1,202 hits. We included 71 rRCTs. Most rRCTs were from Denmark and Sweden. Chronic conditions were considered in 82.2%. A preventive intervention was examined in 45.1%. The median of included patients was 2,000 (range: 69-246,079). Definition of the study population was mostly broad. Study procedures were regularly little standardized. The number of included and analyzed patients was the same in 82.1%. In half of the rRCTs, more than one registry was utilized. Various linkage techniques were used. In median, two outcomes were collected from the registry/ies. The median follow-up of the rRCTs was 5.3 years (range: 6 weeks to 27 years). Information on quality of registry data was reported in 11.3%. CONCLUSION: rRCTs can provide valid (randomization, low lost-to-follow-up rates, generalizable) patient important long-term comparative-effectiveness data for relative little effort. Researchers planning an RCT should always check whether existing registries can be used for data collection. Reporting on data quality must be improved for use in evidence synthesis.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to analyze the features of registry-based randomized trials (rRCTs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We systematically searched PubMed for rRCTs. Study selection was performed independently by two reviewers. We extracted all data in standardized tables and prepared descriptive summary statistics. RESULTS: The search resulted in 1,202 hits. We included 71 rRCTs. Most rRCTs were from Denmark and Sweden. Chronic conditions were considered in 82.2%. A preventive intervention was examined in 45.1%. The median of included patients was 2,000 (range: 69-246,079). Definition of the study population was mostly broad. Study procedures were regularly little standardized. The number of included and analyzed patients was the same in 82.1%. In half of the rRCTs, more than one registry was utilized. Various linkage techniques were used. In median, two outcomes were collected from the registry/ies. The median follow-up of the rRCTs was 5.3 years (range: 6 weeks to 27 years). Information on quality of registry data was reported in 11.3%. CONCLUSION: rRCTs can provide valid (randomization, low lost-to-follow-up rates, generalizable) patient important long-term comparative-effectiveness data for relative little effort. Researchers planning an RCT should always check whether existing registries can be used for data collection. Reporting on data quality must be improved for use in evidence synthesis.
Authors: Kimberly A Mc Cord; Hannah Ewald; Aviv Ladanie; Matthias Briel; Benjamin Speich; Heiner C Bucher; Lars G Hemkens Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2019-02-03
Authors: J Stephen Mikita; Jules Mitchel; Nicolle M Gatto; John Laschinger; James E Tcheng; Emily P Zeitler; Arlene S Swern; E Dawn Flick; Christopher Dowd; Theodore Lystig; Sara B Calvert Journal: Ther Innov Regul Sci Date: 2020-06-22 Impact factor: 1.778
Authors: Michael A Puskarich; Clif Callaway; Robert Silbergleit; Jesse M Pines; Ziad Obermeyer; David W Wright; Renee Y Hsia; Manish N Shah; Andrew A Monte; Alexander T Limkakeng; Zachary F Meisel; Phillip D Levy Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2018-08-16 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Sinéad M Langan; Sigrún A J Schmidt; Kevin Wing; Vera Ehrenstein; Stuart G Nicholls; Kristian B Filion; Olaf Klungel; Irene Petersen; Henrik T Sørensen; William G Dixon; Astrid Guttmann; Katie Harron; Lars G Hemkens; David Moher; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Liam Smeeth; Miriam Sturkenboom; Erik von Elm; Shirley V Wang; Eric I Benchimol Journal: CMAJ Date: 2019-06-24 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: John H Holmes; James Beinlich; Mary R Boland; Kathryn H Bowles; Yong Chen; Tessa S Cook; George Demiris; Michael Draugelis; Laura Fluharty; Peter E Gabriel; Robert Grundmeier; C William Hanson; Daniel S Herman; Blanca E Himes; Rebecca A Hubbard; Charles E Kahn; Dokyoon Kim; Ross Koppel; Qi Long; Nebojsa Mirkovic; Jeffrey S Morris; Danielle L Mowery; Marylyn D Ritchie; Ryan Urbanowicz; Jason H Moore Journal: Methods Inf Med Date: 2021-07-19 Impact factor: 1.800
Authors: Kimberly A Mc Cord; Rustam Al-Shahi Salman; Shaun Treweek; Heidi Gardner; Daniel Strech; William Whiteley; John P A Ioannidis; Lars G Hemkens Journal: Trials Date: 2018-01-11 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Sinéad M Langan; Sigrún Aj Schmidt; Kevin Wing; Vera Ehrenstein; Stuart G Nicholls; Kristian B Filion; Olaf Klungel; Irene Petersen; Henrik T Sorensen; William G Dixon; Astrid Guttmann; Katie Harron; Lars G Hemkens; David Moher; Sebastian Schneeweiss; Liam Smeeth; Miriam Sturkenboom; Erik von Elm; Shirley V Wang; Eric I Benchimol Journal: BMJ Date: 2018-11-14