The UK Knee Osteotomy Registry (UKKOR)

Elson, David W.; Dawson, Matt; Wilson, Chris; Risebury, Mike J; Wilson, Adrian

doi:10.1016/j.knee.2014.10.004

Cited by 20 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…18 25 35 37 A research friendly registry can also help increase participation, particularly if registry contributors can be listed coauthors. 41 65 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…23 44 70 When compared with trials, registries require fewer resources and often collect data from a broader population base so their findings have strong external validity. 41 78 They also frequently provide data on long-term outcomes that exceed the study window of a trial. 65 They can be of particular value when investigating patient groups that are usually excluded from clinical trials such as the elderly.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3 8 11 80 81 It has also been recognised that registry data can serve as a valuable alternative to randomised trials, which can be unfeasible and of limited scientific use, particularly at the development stage of a surgical innovation. 41 65 When compared with trials, registries require fewer resources, have stronger external validity and tend to provide longer term outcome data. 41 65 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

What are the essential features of a successful surgical registry? a systematic review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThe regulation of surgical implants is vital to patient safety, and there is an international drive to establish registries for all implants. Hearing loss is an area of unmet need, and industry is targeting this field with a growing range of surgically implanted hearing devices. Currently, there is no comprehensive UK registry capturing data on these devices; in its absence, it is difficult to monitor safety, practices and effectiveness. A solution is developing a national registry of all auditory implants. However, developing and maintaining a registry faces considerable challenges. In this systematic review, we aimed to identify the essential features of a successful surgical registry.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis recommendations. A comprehensive search of the Medline and Embase databases was conducted in November 2016 using the Ovid Portal. Inclusion criteria were: publications describing the design, development, critical analysis or current status of a national surgical registry. All registry names identified in the screening process were noted and searched in the grey literature. Available national registry reports were reviewed from registry websites. Data were extracted using a data extraction table developed by thematic analysis. Extracted data were synthesised into a structured narrative.ResultsSixty-nine publications were included. The fundamentals to successful registry development include: steering committee to lead and oversee the registry; clear registry objectives; planning for initial and long-term funding; strategic national collaborations among key stakeholders; dedicated registry management team; consensus meetings to agree registry dataset; established data processing systems; anticipating challenges; and implementing strategies to increase data completion. Patient involvement and awareness of legal factors should occur throughout the development process.ConclusionsThis systematic review provides robust knowledge that can be used to inform the successful development of any UK surgical registry. It also provides a methodological framework for international surgical registry development.

show abstract

“…18 25 35 37 A research friendly registry can also help increase participation, particularly if registry contributors can be listed coauthors. 41 65 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What are the essential features of a successful surgical registry? a systematic review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Successful registries have helped drive healthcare quality improvement, improve patient safety, and allowed service providers to monitor quality and identify variations in practice . It has also been recognized that registry data can serve as a valuable alternative to randomized trials . Owing to the challenges of registry development, research has been conducted to facilitate this process …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…19,21,25,[31][32][33] It has also been recognized that registry data can serve as a valuable alternative to randomized trials. [34][35][36] Owing to the challenges of registry development, research has been conducted to facilitate this process. [37][38][39]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidelines on the surgical management of sleep disorders: A systematic review

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To facilitate the development of U.K. guidelines for sleep surgery and to guide sleep surgeons to existing guidelines relevant to their practice, we provide a systematic review and quality assessment of all existing guidelines on the surgical management of sleep disorders. Methods Systematic review using preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. Medline and Embase databases were searched from inception to April 2018. Publications were included if they described a guideline for the surgical management of sleep disorders. Three assessors used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument to evaluate included guidelines. Results The systematic search revealed 1,161 publications. Twenty‐two guidelines from eight countries were included. Fourteen focused on adults, five on children, and three on both. The guidelines discussed nasal, tonsillar, palatal, tongue, hyoid, maxillomandibular, tracheal, bariatric, and multilevel surgeries. The mean overall AGREE II quality score of included guidelines was 3.5 (range = 2 to 5.3; maximum possible score = 7). Conclusion This article provides a summary and quality assessment of all published guidelines on the surgical management of sleep disorders. No U.K. guidelines were identified, and existing guidelines have several shortcomings. This highlights the need for robust U.K. national guidelines on sleep surgery to promote clinical and cost‐effective care in this field. Our findings can be used by stakeholders as a foundation for the development of new guidelines and can be used by sleep surgeons to direct them to existing guidelines relevant to their practice, promoting evidence‐based clinical care. Laryngoscope, 130:1070–1084, 2020

show abstract