Pitfalls in interpretation of large registry data on hernia repair
Authors:
- 1 November 2018
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Nature in Hernia
- Vol. 22 (6) , 947-950
Abstract
Since more and more hernia registries are being created and the number of patients included is increasing, knowledge of potential pitfalls in interpretation of registry data has to be known and dealt with. This invited commentary is to discuss some of these topics. The aim is to present and discuss the main shortcoming of register-based studies and how to deal with these problems, to contribute to more validated results and eventually improved surgical outcomes.Keywords
This publication has 12 references indexed in Scilit:
- Comparison of hernia registries: the CORE projectHernia, 2018
- Time-to-event methodology improved statistical evaluation in register-based health services researchJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2017
- The Danish Ventral Hernia Database – a valuable tool for quality assessment and researchClinical Epidemiology, 2016
- Ethical aspects of registry-based research in the Nordic countriesClinical Epidemiology, 2015
- Comparison Between Clinical Registry and Medicare Claims Data on the Classification of Hospital Quality of Surgical CareAnnals of Surgery, 2015
- P-curve: A key to the file-drawer.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2014
- When the entire population is the sample: strengths and limitations in register-based epidemiologyEuropean Journal of Epidemiology, 2014
- EuraHS: the development of an international online platform for registration and outcome measurement of ventral abdominal wall hernia repairHernia, 2012
- Mesh hernia repair and male infertility: A retrospective register studySurgery, 2012
- HERNIA REGISTERS AND SPECIALIZATIONSurgical Clinics of North America, 1998