Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pitfalls in interpretation of large registry data on hernia repair

  • Invited Commentary
  • Published:
Hernia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

References

  1. Dans PE (1993) Looking for answers in all the wrong places. Ann Intern Med 119:855–857

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Nilsson E, Haapaniemi S (1998) Hernia registers and specialization. Surg Clin North Am 78:1141–1155

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Helgstrand F, Jorgensen LN (2016) The Danish Ventral Hernia Database—a valuable tool for quality assessment and research. Clin Epidemiol 25:719–723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Thygesen LC, Ersbøll AK (2014) When the entire population is the sample: strengths and limitations in register-based epidemiology. Eur J Epidemiol 29:551–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hallén M, Westerdahl J, Nordin P, Gunnarsson U, Sandblom G (2012) Mesh hernia repair and male infertility: a retrospective register study. Surgery 151:94–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Mathieu E, Barratt A, Carter SM, Jamtvedt G (2012) Internet trials: participant experiences and perspectives. BMC Med Res Methodol 12:162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ludvigsson JF, Håberg SE, Knudsen GP, Lafolie P, Zoega H, Sarkkola C, von Kraemer S, Weiderpass E, Nørgaard M (2017) Ethical aspects of registry-based research in the Nordic countries. Clin Epidemiol 23:491–508

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bluhmki T, Bramlage P, Volk M, Kaltheuner M, Danne T, Rathmann W, Beyersmann J (2016) Time-to-event methodology improved statistical evaluation in register-based health services research. J Clin Epidemiol 82:103–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lawson EH, Zingmond DS, Hall BL, Louie R, Brook RH, Ko CY (2015) Comparison between clinical registry and medicare claims data on the classification of hospital quality of surgical care. Ann Surg 261:290–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Simonsohn U, Nelson LD, Simmons JP (2014) P-curve: a key to the file-drawer. J Exp Psychology Gen 143:534–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Muysoms F, Campanelli G, Champault GG et al (2012) EuraHS: the development of an international online platform for registration and outcome measurement of ventral abdominal wall hernia repair. Hernia 16:239–250

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kyle-Leinhase I, Köckerling F, Jorgensen LN, Montgomery A, Gillion JF, Rodriguez JAP, Hope W, Mjuysoms F (2018) Comparison of hernia registries: the CORE project. Hernia 22:561–575

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, German Armed Forces Central Hospital of Koblenz, Ruebenacherstrasse 170, 56072, Koblenz, Germany

    R. Schwab

  2. Department of Visceral, Vascular and Thoracic Surgery, Kantonsspital Olten, Baselstrasse 150, 4600, Olten, Switzerland

    U. A. Dietz

  3. Department of General, Visceral, Vascular and Paediatric Surgery, University Hospital of Wuerzburg, Oberduerrbacher Strasse 6, 97080, Wuerzburg, Germany

    S. Menzel & A. Wiegering

Authors
  1. R. Schwab
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. U. A. Dietz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Menzel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Wiegering
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to U. A. Dietz.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

UD is a member of the board of EuraHS (European Registry of Abdominal Wall Hernias), a project under the auspices of the European Hernia Society. SM is finishing her PhD thesis on validation of a data warehouse software, checking data on incisional hernia and using case-matched EuraHS files as reference standard. RS has nothing to disclose. AW has nothing to disclose.

Ethical approval

Approval from the institutional review board was not required for this letter to the editors.

Human and animal rights

This article is a review article in form of a letter to the editors. Studies with human participants or animals were not performed for the purpose of this article.

Informed consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schwab, R., Dietz, U.A., Menzel, S. et al. Pitfalls in interpretation of large registry data on hernia repair. Hernia 22, 947–950 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-018-1837-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-018-1837-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation