Registry science allows for the interpretation of disease-specific patient data from secondary databases. It can be utilized to understand disease and injury, answer research questions, and engender benchmarking of quality-of-care indicators. Numerous burn registries exist globally, however, their contributions to burn care have not been summarized. The objective of this study is to characterize the available literature on burn registries. The authors conducted a scoping review, having registered the protocol a priori. A thorough search of the English literature, including grey literature, was carried out. Publications of all study designs were eligible for inclusion provided they utilized, analyzed, and/or critiqued data from a burn registry. Three hundred twenty studies were included, encompassing 16 existing burn registries. The most frequently used registries for peer-reviewed publications were the American Burn Association Burn Registry, Burn Model System National Database, and the Burns Registry of Australia and New Zealand. The main limitations of existing registries are the inclusion of patients admitted to burn centers only, deficient capture of outpatient and long-term outcome data, lack of data standardization across registries, and the paucity of studies on burn prevention and quality improvement methodology. Registries are an invaluable source of information for research, delivery of care planning, and benchmarking of processes and outcomes. Efforts should be made to stimulate other jurisdictions to build burn registries and for existing registries to be improved through data linkage with administrative databases, and by standardizing one international minimum dataset, in order to maximize the potential of registry science in burn care.

The one-bone forearm (OBF) is a salvage technique that may be used to correct global forearm instability secondary to osseous defects. This study aims to provide an overview of the contemporary literature regarding the OBF. A literature review was conducted electronically across MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed databases in May 2020. Studies were eligible for inclusion if published in the English language; detailed the use of the OBF procedure to correct forearm instability; and were original data studies reporting qualitative or quantitative outcomes. Thirty-four studies, describing a cohort of 210 patients undergoing 211 OBFs, were documented in the literature. The primary etiology necessitating the OBF was trauma, followed by genetic/congenital disorders and infections. Technically, the OBF was most frequently achieved via an end-to-end osteosynthesis with plate fixation. In total, 85.0% (154/182) of OBF were fused in neutral rotation or varying degrees of pronation. Union was achieved in more than 80.0% (174/211) of OBFs. The OBF is a feasible salvage technique that has been used for a wide spectrum of pathology, providing satisfactory outcomes in most cases.

Introduction Registry science applies observational study designs to interpret large secondary databases. It can be utilized to understand disease and injury, answer research questions, inform regulatory decision making, and engender benchmarking of quality-of-care indicators. Numerous burn registries exist globally, however their contributions to the science of burn epidemiology, care and treatment have not been summarized. The objective of this study is to characterize the available literature on burn registries. Methods We conducted a scoping review, having registered the protocol a priori. A comprehensive literature search across several databases, including the grey literature, was carried out. Studies of all methodological designs were included provided they utilized, analyzed, and/or critiqued burn registry data. Pilot projects from registries in development were included as well. Studies involving non-burn specific registries or registries from a single burn centre were excluded. Results Two hundred and sixty-eight studies were included, encompassing 16 existing burn registries. Although registry science has been used to investigate burn care since 1970, the majority of studies were published after 2007. Most studies utilized the American Burn Association Burn Registry or one of its previous versions (75.7%) and the Burns Registry of Australia and New Zealand (10.4%). Main limitations of existing registries are the inclusion of patients admitted to burn centres only, deficient capture of outpatient and long-term outcome data, and lack of data standardization across registries. Conclusions Registries are an invaluable source of data for research, delivery of care planning, and benchmarking of processes and outcomes. Efforts should be made to stimulate other jurisdictions to build and maintain burn registries, to incorporate data linkage from administrative and other secondary databases, and to standardize data collection, in order to maximize the potential of registry science in burn care.