The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Impact of clinical registries on quality of patient care and clinical outcomes: A systematic review
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical quality registries (CQRs) are playing an increasingly important role in improving health outcomes and reducing health care costs. CQRs are established with the purpose of monitoring quality of care, providing feedback, benchmarking performance, describing pattern of treatment, reducing variation and as a tool for conducting research. OBJECTIVES: To synthesise the impact of clinical quality registries (CQRs) as an 'intervention' on (I) mortality/survival; (II) measures of outcome that reflect a process or outcome of health care; (III) health care utilisation; and (IV) healthcare-related costs. METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL and Google Scholar. In addition, a review of the grey literature and a reference check of citations and reference lists within articles was undertaken to identify relevant studies in English covering the period January 1980 to December 2016. The PRISMA-P methodology, checklist and standard search strategy using pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria and structured data extraction tools were used. Data on study design and methods, participant characteristics attributes of included registries and impact of the registry on outcome measures and/or processes of care were extracted. RESULTS: We identified 30102 abstracts from which 75 full text articles were assessed and finally 17 articles were selected for synthesis. Out of 17 studies, six focused on diabetes care, two on cardiac diseases, two on lung diseases and others on organ transplantations, rheumatoid arthritis, ulcer healing, surgical complications and kidney disease. The majority of studies were "before after" design (#11) followed by cohort design (#2), randomised controlled trial (#2), experimental non randomised study and one cross sectional comparison. The measures of impact of registries were multifarious and included change in processes of care, quality of care, treatment outcomes, adherence to guidelines and survival. Sixteen of 17 studies demonstrated positive findings in their outcomes after implementation of the registry. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the large number of published articles using data derived from CQRs, few have rigorously evaluated the impact of the registry as an intervention on improving health outcomes. Those that have evaluated this impact have mostly found a positive impact on healthcare processes and outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015017319.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 · Cited by 28,164
Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., Britten, N., Roen, K., & Duffy, S. (2006) · Lancaster University · doi:10.13140/2.1.1018.4643 · Cited by 2,070
Khuri, S. F., Daley, J., Henderson, W., Hur, K., Demakis, J., Aust, J. B., Chong, V., Fabri, P. J., Gibbs, J. O., Grover, F., et al. (1998) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/00000658-199810000-00006 · Cited by 1,532
Coleman, M., Forman, D., Bryant, H., Butler, J., Rachet, B., Maringe, C., Nur, U., Tracey, E., Coory, M., Hatcher, J., et al. (2011) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(10)62231-3 · Cited by 1,114
Renders, C. M., Valk, G. D., Griffin, S. J., Wagner, E. H., Eijk van, J. T., & Assendelft, W. J. J. (2001) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/diacare.24.10.1821 · Cited by 1,066
Registries for Evaluating Patient Outcomes: A User’s Guide
(2020) · doi:10.23970/ahrqepcregistries4 · Cited by 960
The stepped wedge trial design: a systematic review
Brown, C. A., & Lilford, R. J. (2006) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-54 · Cited by 907
Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in sytematic reviews
Popay, J., Roberts, H. M., Sowden, A. J., Petticrew, M. P., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., & Britten, N. (2006) · Cited by 690
Cited by
High-quality health systems in the Sustainable Development Goals era: time for a revolution
Kruk, M. E., Gage, A. D., Arsenault, C., Jordan, K., Leslie, H. H., Roder-DeWan, S., Adeyi, O., Barker, P., Daelmans, B., Doubova, S. V., et al. (2018) · The Lancet Global Health · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(18)30386-3 · Cited by 4,057
Environmental disturbance, resource availability, and biologic turnover at the dawn of animal life
Muscente, A. D., Boag, T. H., Bykova, N., & Schiffbauer, J. D. (2018) · Earth-Science Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2017.11.019 · Cited by 72
Six Digital Health Technologies That Will Transform Diabetes
Klonoff, A. N., Lee, W.-A. (., Xu, N. Y., Nguyen, K. T., DuBord, A., & Kerr, D. (2023) · Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology · doi:10.1177/19322968211043498 · Cited by 44
Mittendorf, K. F., Knerr, S., Kauffman, T. L., Lindberg, N. M., Anderson, K. P., Feigelson, H. S., Gilmore, M. J., Hunter, J. E., Joseph, G., Kraft, S. A., et al. (2021) · JCO Precision Oncology · doi:10.1200/po.21.00233 · Cited by 42
Temporal relationship of computed and structured diagnoses in electronic health record data
Schulz, W. L., Young, H. P., Coppi, A., Mortazavi, B. J., Lin, Z., Jean, R. A., & Krumholz, H. M. (2021) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-021-01416-x · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Hoque, D. M. E., Kumari, V., Hoque, M., Ruseckaite, R., Romero, L., & Evans, S. M.
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2017-09-08
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- e0183667
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2751120055
- Cited by
- 300
- References
- 65
- FWCI
- 6.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Impact of clinical registries on quality of patient care and clinical outcomes: A systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0183667
- The paper
- Hoque, D. M. E., Kumari, V., Hoque, M., Ruseckaite, R., Romero, L., & Evans, S. M. (2017). Impact of clinical registries on quality of patient care and clinical outcomes: A systematic review. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183667
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.