| 1. |
- Kyle-Leinhase, I., et al.
(författare)
-
Comparison of hernia registries : the CORE project
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Hernia. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1265-4906 .- 1248-9204. ; 22:4, s. 561-575
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: The aim of the international CORE project was to explore the databases of the existing hernia registries and compare them in content and outcome variables. Methods: The CORE project was initiated with representatives from all established hernia registries (Danish Hernia Database, Swedish Hernia Registry, Herniamed, EuraHS, Club Hernie, EVEREG, AHSQC) in March 2015 in Berlin. The following categories were used to compare the registries: initiation and funding, data collection and use for certification of hernia centers, patient data and data protection, operative data, registration of complications and follow-up data. Results: The Danish Hernia Database is the only one to qualify as a genuine national registry where participation is compulsory for entry of all procedures by all surgeons performing a hernia operation. All other registries have to be considered as voluntary and completeness of data depends upon the participating hospitals and surgeons. Only the Danish Hernia Database and the Swedish Hernia Registry are publicly funded. All other registries are reliant on financial support from the medical technology industry. As an incentive for voluntary participation in a hernia registry, hospitals or surgeons are issued a certificate confirming that they are taking part in a quality assurance study for hernia surgery. Due to data protection and privacy regulations, most registries are obliged or have chosen to enter their patient data anonymously or coded. The Danish Hernia Database and Swedish Hernia Registry utilize a national personal patient code. In the Herniamed Registry, patient data are saved in a coded and anonymous format after obtaining the patient’s informed consent. Conclusion: Despite the differences in the way data are collected for each of the listed hernia registries, the data are indispensable in clinical research.
|
|
| 2. |
- Harji, D., et al.
(författare)
-
A systematic review of outcome reporting in incisional hernia surgery
- 2021
-
Ingår i: BJS Open. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 2474-9842. ; 5:2
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The incidence of incisional hernia is up to 20 per cent after abdominal surgery. The management of patients with incisional hernia can be complex with an array of techniques and meshes available. Ensuring consistency in reporting outcomes across studies on incisional hernia is important and will enable appropriate interpretation, comparison and data synthesis across a range of clinical and operative treatment strategies. METHODS: Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE (from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2019) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. All studies documenting clinical and patient-reported outcomes for incisional hernia were included. RESULTS: In total, 1340 studies were screened, of which 92 were included, reporting outcomes on 12 292 patients undergoing incisional hernia repair. Eight broad-based outcome domains were identified, including patient and clinical demographics, hernia-related symptoms, hernia morphology, recurrent incisional hernia, operative variables, postoperative variables, follow-up and patient-reported outcomes. Clinical outcomes such as hernia recurrence rates were reported in 80 studies (87 per cent). A total of nine different definitions for detecting hernia recurrence were identified. Patient-reported outcomes were reported in 31 studies (34 per cent), with 18 different assessment measures used. CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates the significant heterogeneity in outcome reporting in incisional hernia studies, with significant variation in outcome assessment and definitions. This is coupled with significant under-reporting of patient-reported outcomes.
|
|
