Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Patient Registries for Clinical Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Clinical Research Informatics

Part of the book series: Health Informatics ((HI))

Abstract

Patient registries are fundamental to biomedical research. Registries provide consistent data for defined populations and can be used to support the study of the determinants and manifestations of disease and provide a picture of the natural history, outcomes of treatment, and experiences of individuals with a given condition or exposure. It is anticipated that electronic health record (EHR) systems will evolve to ubiquitously capture detailed clinical data that supports observational, and ultimately interventional, research. Emerging data representation and exchange standards can enable the interoperability required for automated transmission of clinical data into patient registries. This chapter describes informatics principles and approaches relevant to the design and implementation of patient registries, with emphasis on the ingestion of clinical data and the role of patient registries in research and learning health activities.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. AHRQ. In: Gliklich RE, Dreyer NA, editors. Registries for evaluating patient outcomes: a user’s guide. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Travers K, et al. Characteristics and temporal trends in patient registries: focus on the life sciences industry, 1981–2012. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2015;24(4):389–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Muilu J, Peltonen L, Litton JE. The federated database – a basis for biobank-based post-genome studies, integrating phenome and genome data from 600,000 twin pairs in Europe. Eur J Hum Genet. 2007;15(7):718–23.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Nakamura Y. The BioBank Japan project. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol. 2007;5(9):696–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ollier W, Sprosen T, Peakman T. UK Biobank: from concept to reality. Pharmacogenomics. 2005;6(6):639–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sandusky G, Dumaual C, Cheng L. Review paper: human tissues for discovery biomarker pharmaceutical research: the experience of the Indiana University Simon Cancer Center-Lilly Research Labs Tissue/Fluid BioBank. Vet Pathol. 2009;46(1):2–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Horsley K. Florence Nightingale. J Mil Veterans’ Health. 2018;18(4):2–5.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Military Records. Civil war records: basic research sources. 2018 [cited 2018 July 1, 2018]. Available from: https://www.archives.gov/research/military/civil-war/resources.

  9. Patient registries. In: DN, Gliklich RE, Leavy MB, editors. Registries for evaluating patient outcomes: a user’s guide [Internet]. 3rd ed. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  10. CMS. Centralized repository/RoPR. 2018a. [cited 2018 June 23]. Available from: https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EH RIncentivePrograms/CentralizedRepository-.html.

  11. FDA. Guidance for industry and FDA staff. Procedures for handling post-approval studies imposed by PMA order. Rockville: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hollak CE, et al. Limitations of drug registries to evaluate orphan medicinal products for the treatment of lysosomal storage disorders. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2011;6:16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI). CTTI recommendations: registry trials. 2017. [cited 2018 June 23]. Available from: https://www.ctti-clinicaltrials.org/files/recommendations/registrytrials-recs.pdf.

  14. Stey AM, et al. Clinical registries and quality measurement in surgery: a systematic review. Surgery. 2015;157(2):381–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. CMS. Quality measures requirements. 2018b [cited 2018 June 23]. Available from: https://qpp.cms.gov/mips/quality-measures.

  16. Platt R, et al. Clinician engagement for continuous learning discussion paper. Washington, DC: National Academy of Medicine; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  17. AHRQ. Bringing the patient voice to evidence generation: patient engagement in disease registries. (AHRQ Views. Blog posts from AHRQ leaders). 2018. [cited 2018 June 23]. Available from: http://www.ahrq.gov/news/blog/ahrqviews/disease-registries.html.

  18. IOM. The learning healthcare system: workshop summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  19. ONC. Introduction to the interoperability standards advisory. 2018a. [cited 2018 June 23]. Available from: https://www.healthit.gov/isa/.

  20. Chute CG. Medical concept representation. In: Chen H, et al., editors. Medical informatics. Knowledge management and data mining in biomedicine. New York: Springer; 2005. p. 163–82.

    Google Scholar 

  21. ONC. 2015 edition certification companion guide. 2015 edition common clinical data set – 45 CFR 170.102. 2018b. [cited 2018 June 23]. Available from: https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/2015Ed_CCG_CCDS.pdf.

  22. NLM. The NIH common data element (CDE) resource portal. 2013. [cited 2013 March 6]. Available from: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/cde/.

  23. CMS. Data element library. 2018. [cited 2018 June 23]. Available from: https://del.cms.gov/DELWeb/pubHome.

  24. Sood HS, et al. Has the time come for a unique patient identifier for the U.S.? NEJM Catalyst. 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Dusetzina SB, Tyree S, Meyer AM, et al. Linking data for health services research: a framework and instructional guide [Internet]. In:An overview of record linkage methods. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  26. 21st Century Cures Act. 2018. [cited 2018 July 1]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/LawsEnforcedbyFDA/SignificantAmendmentstotheFDCAct/21stCenturyCuresAct/default.htm.

  27. Drozda JP Jr, et al. Constructing the informatics and information technology foundations of a medical device evaluation system: a report from the FDA unique device identifier demonstration. J Am Med Inform Assoc: JAMIA. 2018;25(2):111–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Campbell WS, et al. An alternative database approach for management of SNOMED CT and improved patient data queries. J Biomed Inform. 2015;57:350–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. PheKB. 2012. [cited 2013 May 24]. Vanderbilt University. Available from: http://www.phekb.org/.

  30. NLM. NLM Value Set Authority Center (VSAC). 2015. Feb 11, 2015 [cited 2015 March 11]. Available from: https://vsac.nlm.nih.gov/.

  31. PheMA. PheMA wiki: phenotype execution modeling architecture project. 2015. [cited 2015 September 28]. Available from: http://informatics.mayo.edu/phema/index.php/Main_Page.

  32. Richesson RL, et al. Electronic health records based phenotyping in next-generation clinical trials: a perspective from the NIH health care systems collaboratory. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013;20(e2):e226–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Richesson RL, Smerek MM, Blake Cameron C. A framework to support the sharing and reuse of computable phenotype definitions across health care delivery and clinical research applications. EGEMS (Washington, DC). 2016;4(3):1232.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Gliklich RE, et al. Registry of patient registries outcome measures framework: information model report. Methods research report, Prepared by L&M Policy Research, LLC, under Contract No. 290-2014-00004-C. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Cochi SL, et al. Congenital rubella syndrome in the United States, 1970–1985. On the verge of elimination. Am J Epidemiol. 1989;129(2):349–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Tilling K. Capture-recapture methods – useful or misleading? Int J Epidemiol. 2001;30(1):12–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Rothman K, Greenland S. Modern epidemiology. 2nd ed. Hagerstown: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  38. AHRQ. In: Gliklich RE, Dreyer NA, editors. Registries for evaluating patient outcomes: a user’s guide. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Sanborn TA, et al. ACC/AHA/SCAI 2014 health policy statement on structured reporting for the cardiac catheterization laboratory: a report of the American College of Cardiology Clinical Quality Committee. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(23):2591–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Wickham H. Tidy data. 2014., 2014;59(10):23.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Blumenthal S. The use of clinical registries in the United States: a landscape survey. eGEMs (Generating evidence & methods to improve patient outcomes). 2017;5(1):26.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Chute CG, Huff SM. The pluripotent rendering of clinical data for precision medicine. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2017;245:337–40. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29295111.

  43. ONC. Common clinical data set. 2015. [cited 2018 June 25]. Available from: https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/commonclinicaldataset_ml_11-4-15.pdf.

  44. S4S. Sync for science (S4S). Helping patients share EHR data with researchers. 2018. [cited 2018 June 25]. Available from: http://syncfor.science/.

  45. Sankar PL, Parker LS. The precision medicine initiative’s all of us research program: an agenda for research on its ethical, legal, and social issues. Genet Med: Off J Am Coll Med Genet. 2017;19(7):743–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, NC, USA

    Rachel L. Richesson PhD, MPH, FACMI

  2. Prometheus Research, LLC, New Haven, CT, USA

    Leon Rozenblit JD, PhD

  3. University of South Florida, Health Informatics Institute, Tampa, FL, USA

    Kendra Vehik PhD, MPH

  4. Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA

    James E. Tcheng MD

Authors
  1. Rachel L. Richesson PhD, MPH, FACMI
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leon Rozenblit JD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kendra Vehik PhD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. James E. Tcheng MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rachel L. Richesson PhD, MPH, FACMI .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, NC, USA

    Rachel L. Richesson

  2. School of Information, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

    James E. Andrews

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer International Publishing

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Richesson, R.L., Rozenblit, L., Vehik, K., Tcheng, J.E. (2019). Patient Registries for Clinical Research. In: Richesson, R., Andrews, J. (eds) Clinical Research Informatics. Health Informatics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98779-8_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98779-8_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-98778-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-98779-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation