Cargando…
Usage of orthopaedic trauma registries among members of the International Orthopaedic Trauma Association: How are we doing?
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 Traum...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9782309/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36569114 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/OI9.0000000000000224 |
_version_ | 1784857311588646912 |
---|---|
author | Nguyen, Mai P. Paull, Thomas Z. Miclau, Theodore Marmor, Meir T. |
author_facet | Nguyen, Mai P. Paull, Thomas Z. Miclau, Theodore Marmor, Meir T. |
author_sort | Nguyen, Mai P. |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9782309 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Wolters Kluwer |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-97823092022-12-23 Usage of orthopaedic trauma registries among members of the International Orthopaedic Trauma Association: How are we doing? Nguyen, Mai P. Paull, Thomas Z. Miclau, Theodore Marmor, Meir T. OTA Int Clinical/Basic Science Research Article 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. Wolters Kluwer 2022-12-01 /pmc/articles/PMC9782309/ /pubmed/36569114 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/OI9.0000000000000224 Text en Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. |
spellingShingle | Clinical/Basic Science Research Article Nguyen, Mai P. Paull, Thomas Z. Miclau, Theodore Marmor, Meir T. Usage of orthopaedic trauma registries among members of the International Orthopaedic Trauma Association: How are we doing? |
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? |
topic | Clinical/Basic Science Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9782309/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36569114 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/OI9.0000000000000224 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT nguyenmaip usageoforthopaedictraumaregistriesamongmembersoftheinternationalorthopaedictraumaassociationhowarewedoing AT paullthomasz usageoforthopaedictraumaregistriesamongmembersoftheinternationalorthopaedictraumaassociationhowarewedoing AT miclautheodore usageoforthopaedictraumaregistriesamongmembersoftheinternationalorthopaedictraumaassociationhowarewedoing AT marmormeirt usageoforthopaedictraumaregistriesamongmembersoftheinternationalorthopaedictraumaassociationhowarewedoing |