Jessica C G Bak1, Erik H Serné1, Mark H H Kramer1, Max Nieuwdorp1, Carianne L Verheugt2. 1. Department of Vascular Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Vascular Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. c.verheugt@amsterdamumc.nl.
Abstract
AIMS: The global epidemic of diabetes mellitus continues to expand, including its large impact on national health care. Measuring diabetes outcomes and their causes of variation highlights areas for improvement in care and efficiency gains; large registries carry this potential. By means of a systematic review, we aimed to give an overview of national registries worldwide by quantifying their data and assessing their influence on diabetes care. METHODS: The literature on MEDLINE up to March 31, 2020, was searched, using keywords diabetes mellitus, national, registry, registration, and/or database. National disease-specific registries from corresponding articles were included. Database characteristics and clinical variables were obtained. All registries were compared to the ICHOM standard set of outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 12 national clinical diabetes registries, comprising a total of 7,181,356 diabetic patients worldwide. Nearly all registries recorded weight, HbA1c, lipid profile, and insulin treatment; the recording of other variables varied to a great extent. Overall, registries corresponded fairly well with the ICHOM set. Most registries proved to monitor and improve the quality of diabetes care using guidelines as a benchmark. The effects on national healthcare policy were more variable and often less clear. CONCLUSIONS: National diabetes registries confer clear insights into diagnostics, complications, and treatment. The extent to which registries influenced national healthcare policy was less clear. A globally implemented standard outcome set has the potential to improve concordance between national registries, enhance the comparison and exchange of diabetes outcomes, and allocate resources and interventions where most needed.
AIMS: The global epidemic of diabetes mellitus continues to expand, including its large impact on national health care. Measuring diabetes outcomes and their causes of variation highlights areas for improvement in care and efficiency gains; large registries carry this potential. By means of a systematic review, we aimed to give an overview of national registries worldwide by quantifying their data and assessing their influence on diabetes care. METHODS: The literature on MEDLINE up to March 31, 2020, was searched, using keywords diabetes mellitus, national, registry, registration, and/or database. National disease-specific registries from corresponding articles were included. Database characteristics and clinical variables were obtained. All registries were compared to the ICHOM standard set of outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 12 national clinical diabetes registries, comprising a total of 7,181,356 diabeticpatients worldwide. Nearly all registries recorded weight, HbA1c, lipid profile, and insulin treatment; the recording of other variables varied to a great extent. Overall, registries corresponded fairly well with the ICHOM set. Most registries proved to monitor and improve the quality of diabetes care using guidelines as a benchmark. The effects on national healthcare policy were more variable and often less clear. CONCLUSIONS: National diabetes registries confer clear insights into diagnostics, complications, and treatment. The extent to which registries influenced national healthcare policy was less clear. A globally implemented standard outcome set has the potential to improve concordance between national registries, enhance the comparison and exchange of diabetes outcomes, and allocate resources and interventions where most needed.
Authors: Khalid A Al-Rubeaan; Amira M Youssef; Shazia N Subhani; Najlaa A Ahmad; Ahmad H Al-Sharqawi; Heba M Ibrahim Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2013-09-09 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Khalid Al-Rubeaan; Ahmed M Abu El-Asrar; Amira M Youssef; Shazia N Subhani; Najlaa A Ahmad; Ahmad H Al-Sharqawi; Abdullah Alguwaihes; Metib S Alotaibi; Ali Al-Ghamdi; Heba M Ibrahim Journal: Acta Ophthalmol Date: 2014-10-01 Impact factor: 3.761
Authors: Peter Bramlage; Stefanie Lanzinger; Wolfgang Rathmann; Anton Gillessen; Nikolaus Scheper; Sebastian M Schmid; Matthias Kaltheuner; Jochen Seufert; Thomas Danne; Reinhard W Holl Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2016-09-04 Impact factor: 6.577
Authors: Kris G Thomas; Matthew R Thomas; Robert J Stroebel; Furman S McDonald; Gregory J Hanson; James M Naessens; Todd R Huschka; Joseph C Kolars Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-11-01 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Dewan Md Emdadul Hoque; Varuni Kumari; Masuma Hoque; Rasa Ruseckaite; Lorena Romero; Sue M Evans Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-09-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Suzanne V Arnold; Abhinav Goyal; Silvio E Inzucchi; Darren K McGuire; Fengming Tang; Sanjeev N Mehta; Laurence S Sperling; Thomas M Maddox; Daniel Einhorn; Nathan D Wong; Niklas Hammar; Peter Fenici; Kamlesh Khunti; Carolyn S P Lam; Mikhail Kosiborod Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2017-08-11 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Daniel Yan Zheng Lim; Sing Yi Chia; Hanis Abdul Kadir; Nur Nasyitah Mohamed Salim; Yong Mong Bee Journal: Clin Epidemiol Date: 2021-03-16 Impact factor: 4.790
Authors: Jessica L Harding; Pandora L Wander; Xinge Zhang; Xia Li; Suvi Karuranga; Hongzhi Chen; Hong Sun; Yuting Xie; Richard A Oram; Dianna J Magliano; Zhiguang Zhou; Alicia J Jenkins; Ronald C W Ma Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 17.152
Authors: Jessica C G Bak; Dick Mul; Erik H Serné; Harold W de Valk; Theo C J Sas; Petronella H Geelhoed-Duijvestijn; Mark H H Kramer; Max Nieuwdorp; Carianne L Verheugt Journal: BMC Endocr Disord Date: 2021-06-16 Impact factor: 2.763