Abstract
Objectives
The objective of this study was to analyze the features of registry-based randomized
trials (rRCTs).
Study Design and Setting
We systematically searched PubMed for rRCTs. Study selection was performed independently
by two reviewers. We extracted all data in standardized tables and prepared descriptive
summary statistics.
Results
The search resulted in 1,202 hits. We included 71 rRCTs. Most rRCTs were from Denmark
and Sweden. Chronic conditions were considered in 82.2%. A preventive intervention
was examined in 45.1%. The median of included patients was 2,000 (range: 69–246,079).
Definition of the study population was mostly broad. Study procedures were regularly
little standardized. The number of included and analyzed patients was the same in
82.1%. In half of the rRCTs, more than one registry was utilized. Various linkage
techniques were used. In median, two outcomes were collected from the registry/ies.
The median follow-up of the rRCTs was 5.3 years (range: 6 weeks to 27 years). Information
on quality of registry data was reported in 11.3%.
Conclusion
rRCTs can provide valid (randomization, low lost-to-follow-up rates, generalizable)
patient important long-term comparative-effectiveness data for relative little effort.
Researchers planning an RCT should always check whether existing registries can be
used for data collection. Reporting on data quality must be improved for use in evidence
synthesis.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Commentary: external validity of results of randomized trials: disentangling a complex concept.Int J Epidemiol. 2010; 39: 94-96
- Registries for evaluating patient outcomes: a user’s guide, (prepared by Outcome Decide Center, Rockville [Outcome Sciences, Inc. d/b/a Outcome] under Contract No. HHSA29020050035I TO3).AHRQ Publication No, 2007
- Standards in the conduct of registry studies for patient-centered outcomes research.Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), Cambridge2012
- The randomized registry trial.N Engl J Med. 2014; 370: 681-682
- Cardiovascular registries: a novel platform for randomised clinical trials.Heart. 2012; 98: 1329-1331
- The evolution of the population-based cancer registry.Nat Rev Cancer. 2006; 6: 603-612
- Registry-based randomized controlled trials- what are the advantages, challenges, and areas for future research?.J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 80: 16-24
- Registry-based randomized clinical trials–a new clinical trial paradigm.Nat Rev Cardiol. 2015; 12: 312-316
- Randomization within quality registries: a cost-effective complement to classical randomized trials.Eur Heart J. 2014; 35: 1-2
- The randomized registry trial — the next disruptive technology in clinical research?.N Engl J Med. 2013; 369: 1579-1581
- PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement.J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 75: 40-46
- The current and future use of registers in health information systems.WHO, Geneva1974
- Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach.Syst Rev. 2012; 1: 10
- Adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer and incidence of new primary malignancies.Lancet. 1991; 338: 535-538
- Randomized comparison of a sirolimus-eluting Orsiro stent with a biolimus-eluting Nobori stent in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention: rationale and study design of the Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials with Clinical Outcome VII trial.Am Heart J. 2015; 170: 210-215
- Long-term effects of statin treatment in elderly people: extended follow-up of the PROspective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk (PROSPER).PLoS One. 2013; 8: e72642
- The Danish National Patient Registry: a review of content, data quality, and research potential.Clin Epidemiol. 2015; 7: 449-490
- External review and validation of the Swedish national inpatient register.BMC Public Health. 2011; 11: 450
- Public health research with statutory health insurance drug data.Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2004; 47: 521-525
- Probabilistic record linkage is a valid and transparent tool to combine databases without a patient identification number.J Clin Epidemiol. 2007; 60: 883-891
- Pragmatic trials: practical answers to “real world” questions.JAMA. 2016; 316: 1205-1206
- Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions.BMJ. 2002; 324: 1448-1451
- Drugs and devices: comparison of European and U.S. approval processes.JACC Basic Transl Sci. 2016; 1: 399-412
- World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.JAMA. 2013; 310: 2191-2194
Article info
Publication history
Published online: September 22, 2017
Accepted:
September 20,
2017
Footnotes
Conflict of interest: None.
Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Identification
Copyright
© 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
