Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Global Registries for Measuring Pharmacoeconomic and Quality-of-Life Outcomes

Focus on Design and Data Collection, Analysis and Interpretation

  • Review Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Disease registries have traditionally been vehicles for the collection of clinical data, in most instances following a large number of patients for a long time period in an observational manner, and enhancing our understanding of disease aetiology and epidemiology. However, over recent decades, the potential for additional data collection and analyses to be conducted within the framework of a registry has been recognised and utilised. This is evident by the sheer number of registries that are now referenced in the medical literature, covering a vast array of therapeutic areas and topics much more varied than incidence, prevalence and survival. The opportunity to collect QOL and pharmacoeconomic data has been utilised within the registry framework as more and more countries have increased their demands for such information for regulatory procedures, including pricing and reimbursement decisions. This increased need for information has led to a marked increase in the number of registries undertaken that are primarily sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry.

Disease registries offer tremendous opportunities to realise improvements in care. The length of data collection and the large number of patients involved offer some unusual advantages for QOL and health economic analyses; however, these advantages are not yet fully exploited.

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

Table I
Table II

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The use of trade names is for product identification purposes only and does not imply endorsement.

References

  1. Craig A-M. Assessing pharmacoeconomic and quality of life outcomes in global patient registries. ISPOR connections 2002 Jun 15; 8: (3) 14–5

  2. Metzger J, Haughton J, Smithson K. Improvement-focused information technology for the clinical office practice: a patient registry for disease management. Manag Care Q 1999; 7 (3): 67–74

    Google Scholar 

  3. Advisory Committee National Cancer Registry. Usefulness of cancer registries in epidemiological research and cancer control. S Afr Med J 1995; 85 (8): 748–50

    Google Scholar 

  4. Storm HH. Cancer registries in epidemiologic research. Cancer Causes Control 1996; 7: 299–301

    Google Scholar 

  5. Meurisse M, Vandelaer M. Cancer registries online on internet: a new tool for clinical and epidemiological studies for the sections of the Royal Belgian Society for surgery? Acta Chir Belg 2001; 101: 145–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hernandez BY. The Hawaii Tumor Registry: more than forty years of cancer surveillance for the islands. Hawaii Med J 2002; 61 (3): 53

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Howe HL. Comparability and compatibility: issues in combining data from central cancer registries. Top Health Inf Manage1997; 17 (3): 29–34

  8. Cancer incidence in five continents. Vol VIII. IARC SCI Publ 2002; 155: 1–781

    Google Scholar 

  9. Clive RE. Update from the Commission on Cancer. Top Health Inf Manage 1997 Feb; 17 (3): 10–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. National Program of Cancer Registries [online]. Available from URL: http://mentalhealth.about.com/library/h/docs/bld00684.htm [Accessed 2002 Oct 29]

  11. Solomon DJ, Henry RC, Hogan JG, et al. Evaluation and implementation of public health registries. Public Health Rep 1991 Mar-Apr; 106 (2): 142–50

  12. Russo P. Clinical assessment of quality of life among schizophrenia patients with deficit syndrome [abstract #22853] [online]. Available from URL: http://apha.confex.com/apha/129am/techprogram/paper_22853.htm [Accessed 2001 Oct 22]

  13. Russo P. Schizophrenia Care and Assessment Program (SCAP): the impact of clinical syndrome, antipsychotic medication treatment and adherence on outpatient psychiatric utilization [abstract #22915] [online]. Available from URL: http://apha.confex.com/apha/129am/techprogram/paper_22915.htm [Accessed 2001 Oct 23]

  14. Russo P. From first to second: impact of participant characteristics on the time to first switch in a schizophrenia population [abstract #22894] [online]. Available from URL: http://apha.confex.com/apha/129am/techprogram/paper_22894.htm [Accessed 2001 Oct 23]

  15. Harding C. Early onset females with schizophrenia [abstract #22800] [online]. Available from URL: http://apha. confex.com/apha/129am/techprogram/paper_22800.htm [Accessed 200 Oct 24]

  16. Overview: mission statement, objectives and description of research [online]. Available from URL: http://www.capsure.net/overview.htm [Accessed 2003 Jul 21]

  17. The National Registry of Myocardial Infarction [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nrmi.org [Accessed 2003 Jun 30]

  18. ARAMIS [online]. Available from URL: http://aramis.stanford.edu [Accessed 2003 Jul 1]

  19. Grossfeld GD, Li Y-P, Lubeck DP, et al. Patterns of failure after primary local therapy for prostate cancer and rationale for second therapy. Urology 2002; 60 Suppl. 3A: 57–62

    Google Scholar 

  20. Meng MV, Grossfeld GD, Sadetsky N, et al. Contemporary patterns of androgen deprivation use for newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Urology 2002; 60 Suppl. 3A: 7–11

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cooperberg MR, Lubeck DP, Grossfeld GD, et al. Contemporary trends in imaging test utilization for prostate cancer staging: data from the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor. J Urol 2002; 168: 491–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Grossfeld GD, Latini D, Lubeck DP, et al. Predicting disease CaPrecurrence in intermediate and high-risk patients undergoing radical prostatectomy using percent positive biopsies: results from CaPSURE. Urology 2002; 59: 560–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Penson DF, Grossfeld GD, Li YP, et al. How well does the Partin nomogram predict pathological stage after radical prostatectomy in a community based population?: results from CaPSURE. J Urol 2002; 167: 1653–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Moul J, Connelly RR, Lubeck DP, et al. Predicting risk of prostate specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy with the Center for Prostate Disease Research and Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor databases. J Urol 2001; 166: 1322–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Grossfeld GD, Chang JJ, Broering JM, et al. Under staging and under grading in a contemporary series of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: results from CaPSURE. J Urol 2001; 165: 851–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Grossfeld GD, Chang JJ, Broering JM, et al. Does the completeness of prostate sampling predict outcome for patients underhealthgoing radical prostatectomy?: results from CaPSURE. J Urol diag 2000; 56 (3): 430–5

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Koppie T, Grossfeld GD, Miller D, et al. Patterns of treatment in patients with prostate cancer initially managed with surveillance: results from CaPSURE. J Urol 2000; 164: 81–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Grossfeld GD, Chang JJ, Broering JM, et al. Impact of positive CaPsurgical margins on prostate cancer recurrence and secondary cancer treatment: results from CaPSURE. J Urol 2000; 163: 1171–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Grossfeld GD, Stier DM, Flanders SC, et al. Use of second treatment following definitive therapy for prostate cancer: CaPSURE database. J Urol 1998; 160: 1398–404

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Kindrick AV, Grossfeld GD, Stier DM, et al. Use of imaging tests for staging newly diagnosed prostate cancer: trends from practhe CaPSURE database. J Urol 1998; 160: 2102–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Lubeck DP, Litwin MS, Henning JM, et al. An instrument to measure patient satisfaction with health care in an observational database: results of a validation study using data from CaPSURE. Am J Manag Care 2000; 6 (1): 70–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Stier DM, Greenfield S, Lubeck DP, et al. Quantifying comorbidity in a disease-specific cohort: adaptation of the total illness burden index to prostate cancer. Urology 1999; 54 (3): 424–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Lubeck DP, Pasta DJ, Flanders SC, et al. Approaches to missing data inference: results from CaPSURE, an observational study of patients with prostate cancer. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 15 (2): 197–204

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Lubeck DP, Litwin MS, Henning JM, et al. Measurement of health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer: results from CaPSURE. Qual Life Res 1997; 6: 385–92

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Lubeck DP, Litwin MS, Henning JM, et al. The CaPSURE database: a methodology for clinical practice and research in prostate cancer. Urology 1996; 148 (5): 773–7

    Google Scholar 

  36. Litwin ML, Lubeck DP, Spitalny M, et al. Mental health in men treated for early stage prostate cancer: a posttreatment, longitudinal, quality of life analysis from CaPSURE. Cancer 2002; 95 (1): 54–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lubeck DP, Kim H, Grossfeld GD, et al. Health related quality of life differences between black and white men with prostate cancer: results from CaPSURE. J Urol 2001; 166: 2281–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Litwin MS, Lubeck ML, Stoddard ML, et al. Quality of life before death for men with prostate cancer: results from CaPSURE. J Urol 2001; 165: 871–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Penson D, Stoddard ML, Pasta DJ, et al. The association between socioeconomic status, health insurance coverage and quality of life in men with prostate cancer: Results from CaPSURE. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54 (3): 127–35

    Google Scholar 

  40. Litwin MS, Pasta DJ, Yu J, et al. Urinary function and bother after radical prostatectomy or radiation for prostate cancer: a longitudinal, multivariate quality of life analysis from GapSURE. J Urol 2000; 164: 1973–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Litwin MS, Flanders SC, Pasta DJ, et al. Sexual function and bother after radical prostatectomy or radiation for prostate cancer: a multivariate quality of life analysis from CaPSURE. Urology 1999; 54 (3): 503–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Lubeck DP, Litwin MS, Henning JM, et al. Changes in healthrelated quality of life in the first year after treatment for prostate cancer: results from CaPSURE. Urology 1999; 53: 180–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Litwin MS, Flanders SC. Sexual function after radiation therapy or radical prostatectomy: quality of life results from GapSURE. AUA News 1998 Sep/Oct; 3 (5): 1–2

  44. Litwin MS, Lubeck DP, Henning JM, et al. Differences in urologist and patient assessment of health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer: results from CaPSURE. J Urol 1998; 159: 1988–92

    Google Scholar 

  45. Penson DF, Litwin MS, Lubeck DP, et al. Transitions in healthrelated quality of life during the first nine months after diagnosis with prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 1998; 1: 134–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Penson D, Schonfeld WH, Flanders SC, et al. Relationship of first-year costs of treating localized prostate cancer to initial choice of therapy and stage at diagnosis: results from GapSURE. Urology 2001; 57 (3): 499–503

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. NRMI background [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nrmi.org/nrmi_background.html [Accessed 2003 Jun 30]

  48. Tan TJ, Antman EM, Brooks NH, et al. 1999 update: ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999 Sep; 34 (3): 890–911

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. NRMI bibliography [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nrmi.org/nrmi_biblio.html [Accessed 2003 Jun 30]

  50. Canto JG, Rogers WJ, French WJ, et al. Payer status and the utilization of hospital resources in acute myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160: 817–23

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. French WJ. Trends in acute myocardial infarction management: use of the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction in quality improvement. Am J Cardiol 2000; 85: 5B-9B

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Tiefenbrunn AJ, Chandra NC, French WJ, et al. Clinical experience with primary percutaneous transluminal coronary plasminogen activator) in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a report from the Second National Registry of Myocardial Infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 31: 1240–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Cannon CP, Gibson CM, Lambrew CT, et al. Relationship of symptom-onset-to-balloon time and door-to-balloon time with mortality in patients undergoing angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. JAMA 2000; 283: 2941–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Canto JG, Every NR, Magid DJ, et al. for the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 2 Investigators. The volume of primary angioplasty procedures and survival after acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 1573–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Bruce B. Fries JF. The Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire: A review of its history, issues, progress, and documentation. J Rheumatol 2003; 30 (1): 167–78

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. ARAMIS: pharmaceutical collaborations [online]. Available from URL: http://aramis.stanford.edu/pharmaceutical_collaborations.html [Accessed 2003 Jul 1]

  57. Ortendahl M, Holmes T, Schettler JD, et al. The methotrexate therapeutic response in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2002 Oct; 29 (10): 2084–91

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Fries JF, Williams CA, Singh G, et al. Response to therapy in rheumatoid arthritis is influenced by immediately prior therapy. J Rheumatol 1997; 24 (5): 838–44

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Fries JF, Ramey DR. ‘Arthritis specific’ global health analog costscales assess ‘generic’ health related quality-of-life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 1997; 24 (9): 1697–702

    Google Scholar 

  60. Yawn BP, Gazzuola L, Wollan PC, et al. Development and maintenance of a community-based hepatitis C registry. Am J Manag Care 2002; 8 (3): 253–61

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Pies R. The shifting paradigm of antipsychotic outcome assessment. Psychiatric Times 2000; 17 (11): 58

    Google Scholar 

  62. Trooskin SZ, Copes WS, Bain LW, et al. Case-matching methodology as an adjunct to trauma performance improvement for evaluating lengths of stay and complications. 1999; 47 (6): 1018–27

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Hollander JE, Singer AJ, Valentine S, et al. Wound registry: development and validation. Ann Emerg Med 1995; 25: 675–85

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Edwards M, Taylor KM. A Profile of valve replacement surgery in the UK (1986–1997): a study from the UK heart valve registry. J Heart Valve Dis 1999; 8 (6): 697–701

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Baim DS, Leon MB, Popma JJ, et al. Problems in the evaluation qof new devices for coronary intervention: what have we learned since 1989? Am J Cardiol 1997 Nov 20; 80 (10A): long 3K-9K

  66. Nilsson E, Haapaniemi S. Hernia registers and specialisation. Surg Clin North Am 1998; 78 (6): 1141–55, ix

    Google Scholar 

  67. Nathwani D, Tice A. Ambulatory antimicrobial use: the value of an outcomes registry. J Antimicrob Chemother 2002; 49 (1): 149–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Pirente N, Bouillon B, Schafer B, et al. Systematic development of a scale for determination of health-related quality of life in multiple trauma patients: the Polytrauma Outcome (POLO) Chart. Unfallchirurg 2002; 105 (5): 413–22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Kutler DI, Singh B, Satagopan J, et al. A 20 year perspective of the International Fanconi Anemia Registry (IFAR). Blood 2002 Feb 15; 101 (4): 1249–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Gaucher registry [online]. Available from URL: http://www.gaucherregistry.com [Accessed 2002 Oct 29]

  71. Fabry registry [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fabryregistry.com [Accessed 2002 Oct 29]

  72. CMV updates [online]. Available from URL: http://www.bcm.tmc.edu/pedi/infect/cmv/ [Accessed 2002 Oct 29]

  73. Schizophrenia research at the National Institute of Mental Health [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/schizresfact.htm [Accessed 2002 Oct 29]

  74. Cunningham GC, Tompkinson DG. Cost and effectiveness of the California triple marker prenatal screening program. Genet Med 1999; 1 (5): 199–206

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Burkhardt JH, Litwin MS, Rose CM, et al. Comparing the costs of radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy for the initial treatment of early-stage prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20 (12): 2869–75

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Krahn MD, Coombs A, Levy IG. Current and projected annual direct costs of screening asymptomatic men for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen. CMAJ 1999; 160 (1): 49–57

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Ramsey SD, Berry K, Etzioni R. Lifetime cancer-attributable cost of care for long term survivors of colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97 (2): 440–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. O’Brien BD, Brown MG, Kephart G. Estimation of hospital costs for colorectal cancer care in Nova Scotia. Can J Gastroenterol 200; 15 (1): 43–7

  79. Ramsey SD, Clarke L, Etzioni R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of microsatellite instability screening as a method for detecting hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med 2001; 135 (8 Pt 1): 577–88

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Farndon MA, Wayman J, Clague MB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in the management of patients with oesophageal cancer. Br J Surg 1998; 85 (10): 1394–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Lee SJ, Anasetti C, Kuntz KM, et al. The costs and cost-effectiveness of unrelated donor bone marrow transplantation for chronic phase chronic myelogenous leukemia. Blood 1998; 92 (11): 4047–52

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Hall AJ, Roberston RL, Crivelli PE, et al. Cost-effectiveness of hepatitis B vaccine in The Gambia. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 1993; 87 (3): 333–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Lim TO, Lim YN, Wong HS, et al. Cost effectiveness evaluation of the Ministry of Health Malaysia dialysis programme. Med J Malaysia 1999; 54 (4): 442–52

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Holohan TV. Simultaneous pancreas-kidney and sequential pancreas-after-kidney transplantation. Health Technol Assess (Rockv) 1995; (4): 1–53

  85. Alkins SA, O’Malley P. Should health-care systems pay for replacement therapy in patients with alpha(1)-antitrypsin deficiency: a critical review and cost-effectiveness analysis. Chest 2000; 117 (3): 875–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Greenberg D, Katz A, Epstein M, et al. Implantable cardioverter defibrillators in Israel: utilization and implantation trends. Int J Cardiol 2002; 82 (1): 17–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Foutz RA, Sayre MR. Automated external defibrillators in long-term care facilities are cost-effective. Prehosp Emerg Care 2000; 4 (4): 314–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Boyd WD, Desai ND, Del Rizzo DF, et al. Off-pump surgery decreases postoperative complications and resource utilization in the elderly. Ann Thorac Surg 1999; 68 (4): 1490–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Norum J. Prevention of colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness approach to a screening model employing sigmoidoscopy. Ann Oncol 1998; 9 (6): 613–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Vasen HF, van Ballegooijen M, Buskens E, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of colorectal screening of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma gene carriers. Cancer 1998; 82 (9): 1632–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Marshall D, Simpson KN, Earle CC, et al. Economic decision analysis model of screening for lung cancer. Eur J Cancer 2001; 37 (14): 1759–67

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Marshall D, Simpson KN, Earle CC, et al. Potential cost-effectiveness of one-time screening for lung cancer (LC) in a high risk cohort. Lung Cancer 2001; 32 (3): 227–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Will BP, Le Petit C, Berthelot JM, et al. Diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for nonmetastatic breast cancer in Canada, and their associated costs. Br J Cancer 1999; 79 (9–10): 1428–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Sanders GD, Hlatky MA, Every NR, et al. Potential cost-effectiveness of prophylactic use of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator or amiodarone after myocardial infarction. Ann Intern Med 2001; 135 (10): 870–83

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. de Wit GA, Ramsteijn PG, de Charro FT. Economic evaluation of end stage renal disease treatment. Health Policy 1998; 44 (3): 215–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Schapira DV, Jarrett AR. The need to consider survival, outcome, and expense when evaluating and treating patients with unknown primary carcinoma. Arch Intern Med 1995; 155 (19): 2050–4

    Google Scholar 

  97. Frank JB, Lim CK, Flynn JM, et al. The efficacy of magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric cervical spine clearance. Spine 2002; 27 (11): 1176–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Kobelt G, Lundstrom M, Stenevi U. Cost-effectiveness of cataract surgery: method to assess cost-effectiveness using registry data. J Cataract Refract Surg 2002; 28 (10): 1742–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Ramsey SD, Patrick DL, Albert RK, et al. The cost-effectiveness of lung transplantation: a pilot study. University of Washington Medical Center Lung Transplant Study Group. Chest 1995; 108 (6): 1594–601

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Kuntz AL, Weymuller Jr EA. Impact of neck dissection on quality of life. Laryngoscope 1999; 109 (8): 1334–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Ashing-Giwa K, Ganz PA, Petersen L. Quality of life of Africancan-American and white long term breast carcinoma survivors. Cancer 1999; 85 (2): 418–26

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Kokoska ER, Stapleton DR, Virgo KS, et al. Quality of life measurements do not support palliative pancreatic cancer treatments. Int J Oncol 1998; 13 (6): 1323–9

    Google Scholar 

  103. Deleyiannis FW, Weymuller Jr EA, Coltrera MD. Quality of life of disease-free survivors of advanced (stage III or IV) oropharyngeal cancer. Head Neck 1997; 19 (6): 466–73

    Google Scholar 

  104. Ferrans CE. Development of a quality of life index for patients with cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum 1990; 17 (3 Suppl.): 15–9

    Google Scholar 

  105. D’Amico G. Comparability of different registries on renal placement therapy: proceedings from the symposium on renal replacement therapy throughout the world: the registries. Am J Kidney Dis 1995; 25 (1): 113–8

    Google Scholar 

  106. Mooney G. Key issues in health economics. Hemel Hampstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1994: 109

  107. Dyke CK, Califf RM. National and Regional Registries: what good are they? Eur Health J 2000; 21: 1401–3

    Google Scholar 

  108. Fox KA, Cokkinos DV, Deckers J, et al. The ENACT study: a pan-European survey of acute coronary syndromes. EuropeanNetwork for Acute Coronary Treatment. Eur Heart J 2000; 21 (17): 1440–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  109. Kozma CM. Using registries for research. Manag Care Interface 2000; 13 (11): 72

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  110. Buckley CJ, Lee SD, Arko FR, et al. Economic considerations for aortic surgery: retroperitoneal approach: is it worth it? Acta Chir Belg 2000; 100 (6): 247–50

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. Calver AL, Blows LJ, Harmer S, et al. Clopidogrel for prevention of major cardiac events after coronary stent implantation: 30-day and 6-month results in patients with smaller stents. Am Heart J 2000; 140 (3): 483–91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  112. Baldyga AP, Paganini EP, Chaff C, et al. Acute dialytic support of the octogenarian: is it worth it? ASAIO J 1993; 39 (3): M805–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Weymuller Jr EA, Alsarraf R, Yueh B, et al. Analysis of the performance characteristics of the University of Washington Quality of Life instrument and its modification (UW-QOL-R). Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001; 127 (5): 489–93

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Every NR, Frederick PD, Robinson M, et al. A comparison of the national registry of myocardial infarction 2 with the cooperative cardiovascular project. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999; 33 (7): 1886–94

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  115. DeLong ER, Nelson CL, Wong JB, et al. Using observational data to estimate prognosis: an example using a coronary artery disease registry. Stat Med 2001; 20: 2505–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  116. Roos LL, Fedson DS, Roberts JD, et al. Reminding and monitoring: new uses of administrative data for preventive care. Health Manage Forum 1996; 9 (4): 30–6

    Google Scholar 

  117. Chalmers TC, Matta RJ, Smith Jr H, et al. Evidence favoring the use of anticoagulants in the hospital phase of acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1977; 297: 1091–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  118. Sacks H, Chalmers TC, Smith Jr H. Randomized versus historical controls for clinical trials. Am J Med 1982; 72: 233–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  119. Chalmers TC, Celano P, Sacks HS, et al. Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. N Engl J Med 1983; 309: 1358–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  120. Colditz GA, Miller JN, Mosterller F. How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy: I. medical. Stat Med 1989; 8: 441–54

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  121. Miller JN, Colditz GA, Mosteller F. How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy: II. Surgical. Stat Med 1989; 8: 455–66

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  122. Benson K, Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med 2000, 1886

  123. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research design. N Engl J Med 2000; 342 (25): 1887–92

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  124. Rask KJ, Wells KJ, Kohler SA, et al. Measuring immunization registry costs: promises and pitfalls. Am J Prev Med 2000; 18 (3): 262–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  125. Elwyn GJ, Vaughan NJ, Stott NC. District diabetes registers: more trouble than they’re worth? Diabet Med 1998; 15 Suppl. 3: S44–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. Brackmann HH, Schwaab R, Effenberger W, et al. Antibodies to factor VIII in hemophilia A patients. Vox Sang 2000; 78 Suppl. 2: 187–90

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  127. Rosen M, Ericson A. Health care registries a community asset: centralized registries of health care data can save life and improve quality of life. Lakartidningen 1999; 96 (35): 3668–73

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  128. Perry A, Capewell S, Walker A, et al. Measuring the costs and benefits of heart disease monitoring. Heart 2000; 83 (6): 651–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors received no funding for this review and have no potential conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Quintiles Limited, Station House Market Street, Bracknell, RG12 1HX, UK

    Lisa Kennedy & Ann-Marie Craig

Authors
  1. Lisa Kennedy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ann-Marie Craig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kennedy, L., Craig, AM. Global Registries for Measuring Pharmacoeconomic and Quality-of-Life Outcomes. PharmacoEconomics 22, 551–568 (2004). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200422090-00001

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200422090-00001

Keywords

Search

Navigation