• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

用于评估临床注册登记的新兴经济证据和方法:一项系统综述方案

The emerging economic evidence and methods used to evaluate clinical registries: a systematic scoping review protocol.

作者信息

Pisavadia Kalpa, Hartfiel Ned, Varghese Limssy, Krayer Anne, Hobson Gemma, Masters Rebecca, Poole Rob, Robinson Catherine, Edwards Rhiannon Tudor, Bebbington Emily

机构信息

Centre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Bangor, UK

Centre for Health Economics and Medicines Evaluation, Bangor University, Bangor, UK.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2025 Jun 24;15(6):e100644. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2025-100644.

DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-100644
PMID:40555451
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12198832/
Abstract

INTRODUCTION

A clinical registry is a systematically collected database of health-specific information about a patient population. Clinical registries can be used for a variety of purposes including surveillance, monitoring of outcomes and patient care. The establishment and maintenance of clinical registries come with a significant cost. This scoping review aims to identify the methods used to economically evaluate clinical registries including their costs and benefits.

METHODS

This systematic scoping review protocol has been developed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. The final review will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. The electronic databases Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and The Cumulative Index to Allied Health Literature(CINAHL) database will be searched. Relevant national organisation websites will be searched to identify empirical studies within grey literature. The inclusion criteria include studies that economically evaluate clinical registries and are published in the English language from inception to February 2025. Two reviewers will independently screen 100% of titles and abstracts and full texts of studies for inclusion. Data will be extracted from eligible studies prior to being assessed for quality using a multi-tool approach.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The findings of this review will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal. They are likely to be of interest to custodians of existing clinical registries and to those wishing to establish or evaluate clinical registries.Clinical registries, economic evaluation, costs, cost-effectiveness, health economics, registry based studies.

摘要

引言

临床注册库是一个系统收集的关于患者群体特定健康信息的数据库。临床注册库可用于多种目的,包括监测、结果监测和患者护理。临床注册库的建立和维护成本高昂。本范围综述旨在确定用于对临床注册库进行经济评估的方法,包括其成本和效益。

方法

本系统范围综述方案是根据系统评价与Meta分析方案的首选报告项目(PRISMA-P)指南制定的。最终综述将按照系统评价与Meta分析扩展版范围综述的首选报告项目(PRISMA-ScR)清单进行报告。将检索电子数据库Medline、Embase、Cochrane图书馆和联合健康文献累积索引(CINAHL)数据库。将搜索相关国家组织网站,以识别灰色文献中的实证研究。纳入标准包括从开始到2025年2月以英文发表的对临床注册库进行经济评估的研究。两名评审员将独立筛选100%的研究标题、摘要和全文以确定是否纳入。在使用多工具方法评估质量之前,将从符合条件的研究中提取数据。

伦理与传播

本综述的结果将发表在国际同行评审期刊上。现有临床注册库的管理者以及希望建立或评估临床注册库的人可能会对其感兴趣。临床注册库、经济评估、成本、成本效益、卫生经济学、基于注册库的研究。

相似文献

1
The emerging economic evidence and methods used to evaluate clinical registries: a systematic scoping review protocol.用于评估临床注册登记的新兴经济证据和方法:一项系统综述方案
BMJ Open. 2025 Jun 24;15(6):e100644. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2025-100644.
2
Eliciting adverse effects data from participants in clinical trials.从临床试验参与者中获取不良反应数据。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 16;1(1):MR000039. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000039.pub2.
3
Patient-Reported Incident Measure (PRIM) tools for reporting patient safety incidents: protocol for a scoping review.用于报告患者安全事件的患者报告事件测量(PRIM)工具:一项范围综述方案
BMJ Open. 2025 Jun 23;15(6):e096983. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-096983.
4
A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan for ovarian cancer.拓扑替康治疗卵巢癌的临床有效性和成本效益的快速系统评价。
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(28):1-110. doi: 10.3310/hta5280.
5
Factors that impact on the use of mechanical ventilation weaning protocols in critically ill adults and children: a qualitative evidence-synthesis.影响重症成人和儿童机械通气撤机方案使用的因素:一项定性证据综合分析
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Oct 4;10(10):CD011812. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011812.pub2.
6
Cost-effectiveness of using prognostic information to select women with breast cancer for adjuvant systemic therapy.利用预后信息为乳腺癌患者选择辅助性全身治疗的成本效益
Health Technol Assess. 2006 Sep;10(34):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-204. doi: 10.3310/hta10340.
7
Hospital at home digital twin for the management of patients with frailty: a scoping review protocol.用于虚弱患者管理的居家医院数字孪生:一项范围综述方案
BMJ Open. 2025 Jun 17;15(6):e093418. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-093418.
8
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of low-intensity psychological interventions for the secondary prevention of relapse after depression: a systematic review.低强度心理干预在预防抑郁复发中的临床效果和成本效益:系统评价。
Health Technol Assess. 2012 May;16(28):1-130. doi: 10.3310/hta16280.
9
How Labeling of Commercial Baby Foods Impacts Parents' Beliefs About Sugar Content and Related Purchasing and Feeding Decisions: Protocol for a Scoping Review.商业婴儿食品标签如何影响父母对糖分含量的看法以及相关购买和喂养决策:一项范围综述的方案
JMIR Res Protoc. 2025 Jun 19;14:e70135. doi: 10.2196/70135.
10
What is the value of routinely testing full blood count, electrolytes and urea, and pulmonary function tests before elective surgery in patients with no apparent clinical indication and in subgroups of patients with common comorbidities: a systematic review of the clinical and cost-effective literature.在没有明显临床指征的患者和常见合并症患者亚组中,在择期手术前常规检测全血细胞计数、电解质和尿素以及肺功能测试的价值:对临床和成本效益文献的系统评价。
Health Technol Assess. 2012 Dec;16(50):i-xvi, 1-159. doi: 10.3310/hta16500.

本文引用的文献

1
How to establish and sustain a disease registry: insights from a qualitative study of six disease registries in the UK.如何建立和维持疾病登记处:来自英国六个疾病登记处的定性研究的见解。
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2024 Nov 28;24(1):361. doi: 10.1186/s12911-024-02775-x.
2
Exploring the similarities and differences of burn registers globally: Results from a data dictionary comparison study.全球烧伤登记处的相似性和差异性探索:数据字典比较研究结果。
Burns. 2024 May;50(4):850-865. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2024.01.004. Epub 2024 Jan 15.
3
A consensus-based checklist for the critical appraisal of cost-of-illness (COI) studies.
基于共识的疾病成本研究(COI)评价检查表。
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2023 Jun 16;39(1):e34. doi: 10.1017/S0266462323000193.
4
The science of clinical quality registries.临床质量登记研究。
Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2023 Mar 1;22(2):220-225. doi: 10.1093/eurjcn/zvad008.
5
Clinical registries data quality attributes to support registry-based randomised controlled trials: A scoping review.临床注册研究数据质量属性支持基于注册的随机对照试验:范围综述。
Contemp Clin Trials. 2022 Aug;119:106843. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2022.106843. Epub 2022 Jul 2.
6
Cost-effectiveness of psychosocial assessment for individuals who present to hospital following self-harm in England: A model-based retrospective analysis.英格兰自残就诊者的心理社会评估的成本效益:基于模型的回顾性分析。
Eur Psychiatry. 2022 Jan 31;65(1):e16. doi: 10.1192/j.eurpsy.2022.5.
7
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.PRISMA 2020 声明:系统评价报告的更新指南。
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71.
8
Economic evaluation of clinical quality registries: a systematic review.临床质量登记处的经济评价:系统评价。
BMJ Open. 2019 Dec 15;9(12):e030984. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030984.
9
Electronic Health Record-Based Registries: Clinical Research Using Registries in Colon and Rectal Surgery.基于电子健康记录的注册登记:结直肠手术中使用注册登记进行临床研究
Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2019 Jan;32(1):82-90. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1673358. Epub 2019 Jan 8.
10
PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation.PRISMA 扩展用于范围审查 (PRISMA-ScR): 清单和解释。
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467-473. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850. Epub 2018 Sep 4.