The postmarket research goal is to assess “generalizability” or “external validity” to see if the early results of clinical trials with investigational devices are reproducible in everyday practice in the real world and the longer term. Registries have an important but ambivalent role in achieving this goal.
Methods
Although registries are common, in practice they follow the regulatory processes that appear designed primarily for pharmaceutical clinical trials and confirmatory studies. We review the literature to assess different definitions and the role of registries in the hierarchy of scientific evidence. We analyze common characteristics affecting registry design, implementation, and governance as well as safety reporting and off-label use while describing the experience of setting up an international, prospective registry for an endovascular device used to treat abdominal aortic aneurysms.
Results
Key areas in which to distinguish registries from trials are as follows: eligibility, setting (patients and institutions), device configurations and iterations, the use of design and quality “spaces,” a focus on systematic quality checks (rather than source data monitoring), open-ended follow-up, flexibility in the definition of end points and sample sizes, data sharing, and publishing commitments.
Conclusion
Both clinical trials and registries are essential and complementary research methods and the strengths and weaknesses of each need to be recognized. The specific characteristics of registry research deserve to be acknowledged and safeguarded in the regulations governing clinical investigations with medical devices.
KramerDBTanYTSatoC, et al. Postmarket surveillance of medical devices: a comparison of strategies in the US, EU, Japan, and China. PLoS Med2013; 10(9): e1001519.
2.
VandenbrouckeJP.Observational research, randomised trials, and two views of medical science. PLoS Med2008; 5(3): e67.
3.
Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April2017on medical devices, amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and repealing Council Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC (Text with EEA relevance.), http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/745/oj
4.
IrgensLM.The origin of registry-based medical research and care. Acta Neurol Scand2012; 126: 4–6.
5.
ZaletelMKraljMMagajneM, et al. Methodological guidelines and recommendations for efficient and rationale governance of patient registries. Eur J Public Health. Epub ahead of print 1 October 2015. DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/ckv169.006.
6.
LubbekeASilmanAJBareaC, et al. Mapping existing hip and knee replacement registries in Europe. Health Policy2018; 122(5): 548–557.
7.
SchwartzDLellouchJ.Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. J Chron Dis1967; 20: 637–648.
8.
CaliffRMSugarmanJ.Exploring the ethical and regulatory issues in pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials2015; 12(5): 436–441.
9.
MeineckeA-KWelsingPKafatosG, et al. Series: pragmatic trials and real world evidence: paper 8. Data collection and management. J Clin Epidemiol2017; 91: 13–22.
10.
BellowsMT.Case registers. Public Health Rep1949; 64: 1148–1158.
11.
GliklichREDreyerNALeavyMB.Patient registries. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK208643/ (2014, accessed 12 July 2017).
12.
PolygenisD (ed.). SPOR taxonomy of patient registries: classification, characteristics and terms. Lawrenceville, NJ: ISPOR—The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research, 2013.
13.
GliklichREDreyerNALeavyMB (eds). Registries for evaluating patient outcomes: a user’s guide. 3rd ed.Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2014, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK208616/
Strengthening Our National System for Medical Device Postmarket Surveillance. Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, https://www.fda.gov/media/84409/download (accessed 30 May 2019).
16.
TenaertsPMadreLLandrayM.A decade of the clinical trials transformation initiative: what have we accomplished? What have we learned?Clin Trials2018; 15(1_Suppl.): 5–12.
ISO 14155:2011. Clinical investigation of medical devices for human subjects—Good clinical practice, https://www.iso.org/standard/45557.html (accessed 04 April 2019)
21.
BouvyJCBlakeKSlatteryJ, et al. Registries in European post-marketing surveillance: a retrospective analysis of centrally approved products, 2005–2013. Pharmacoepidem Dr S2017; 26(12): 1442–1450.
MulderDSSpicerJ.Registry based medical research: data dredging or value building to quality of care?Ann Thorac Surg. Epub ahead of print 8 February 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.12.060.
EtkinCDSpringerBD.The American joint replacement registry—the first 5 years. Arthroplast Today2017; 3(2): 67–69.
26.
BoyerPBoutronIRavaudP.Scientific production and impact of national registers: the example of orthopaedic national registers. Osteoarthr Cartilage2011; 19(7): 858–863.
27.
GrangerCBGershBJ.Clinical trials and registries in cardiovascular disease: competitive or complementary?Eur Heart J2010; 31: 520–521.
28.
BrownMLGershBJHolmesDR, et al. From randomized trials to registry studies: translating data into clinical information. Nat Clin Pract Cardiovasc Med2008; 5(10): 613–620.
29.
HickeyGLGrantSWCosgriffR, et al. Clinical registries: governance, management, analysis and applications. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2013; 44(4): 605–614.
30.
ErginaPLCookJABlazebyJM, et al. Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet2009; 374(9695): 1097–1104.
31.
LauerMSD’AgostinoRBSr. The randomized registry trial—the next disruptive technology in clinical research?N Engl J Med2013; 369(17): 1579–1581.
32.
RolandMTorgersonDJ.Understanding controlled trials: what are pragmatic trials?BMJ1998; 316: 285.
33.
TunisSRStryerDBClancyCM.Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA2003; 290(12): 1624–1632.
34.
RoehrB.The appeal of large simple trials. BMJ2013; 346: f1317.
35.
EapenZJLauerMSTempleRJ.The imperative of overcoming barriers to the conduct of large, simple trials. JAMA2014; 311(14): 1397–1398.
36.
YehRWCzarnyMJNormandSLT, et al. Evaluating the generalizability of a large streamlined cardiovascular trial: comparing hospitals and patients in the dual antiplatelet therapy study versus the national cardiovascular data registry. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes2015; 8(1): 96–102.
37.
VickersAJ.Clinical trials in crisis: four simple methodologic fixes. Clin Trials2014; 11(6): 615–621.
38.
KentFAmblerGKBosanquetDC, et al. The safety of device registries for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: systematic review and meta-regression. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2018; 55: 177–183.
39.
Ferreira-GonzalezIMarsalJRMitjavilaF, et al. Patient registries of acute coronary syndrome: assessing or biasing the clinical real world data?Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes2009; 2(6): 540–547.
40.
ElfströmJStubberödATroengT.Patients not included in medical audit have a worse outcome than those included. Int J Qual Health C1996; 8: 153–157.
41.
FordINorrieJ.Pragmatic trials. N Engl J Med2016; 375: 454–463.
42.
McKinneyREJrBeskowLMFordDE, et al. Use of altered informed consent in pragmatic clinical research. Clin Trials2015; 12(5): 494–502.
43.
HolmesDRJr.President’s page: measuring and other things. J Am Coll Cardiol2011; 58(15): 1638–1639.
44.
DaltonARHAlshamsanRMajeedA, et al. Exclusion of patients from quality measurement of diabetes care in the UK pay-for-performance programme. Diabetic Med2011; 28(5): 525–531.
45.
ChangR-ELinS-PAronDC.A pay-for-performance program in Taiwan improved care for some diabetes patients, but doctors may have excluded sicker ones. Health Affair2012; 31(1): 93–102.
46.
GittAKBuenoHDanchinN, et al. The role of cardiac registries in evidence-based medicine. Eur Heart J2010; 31(5): 525–529.
47.
McGrawDGreeneSMMinerCS, et al. Privacy and confidentiality in pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials2015; 12(5): 520–529.
48.
KalkmanSvan ThielGJMWZuidgeestMGP, et al. Series: pragmatic trials and real world evidence: paper 4. Informed consent. J Clin Epidemiol2017; 89: 181–187.
49.
Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Health Research and the Privacy of Health Information: The HIPAA Privacy Rule. Beyond the HIPAA privacy rule: enhancing privacy, improving health through research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9578/ (2009, accessed 11 May 2018).
50.
Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, and repealing Directive 2001/20/EC Text with EEA relevance.32014R0536, http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/536/oj/eng (2014, accessed 11 May 2018).
51.
RodwinMA.Patient data: property, privacy & the public interest. Am J Law Med2010; 36: 586–618.
52.
CateF.Protecting privacy in health research: the limits of individual choice. Calif Law Rev2010; 98: 1765.
53.
MuysomsFCampanelliGChampaultGG, et al. EuraHS: the development of an international online platform for registration and outcome measurement of ventral abdominal wall hernia repair. Hernia2012; 16(3): 239–250.
54.
BeckermanWETadrosROFariesPL, et al. No major difference in outcomes for endovascular aneurysm repair stent grafts placed outside of instructions for use. J Vasc Surg2016; 64(1): 63.e2–74.e2.
55.
HermanCRCharbonneauPHongkuK, et al. Any nonadherence to instructions for use predicts graft-related adverse events in patients undergoing elective endovascular aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg2018; 67(1): 126–133.
56.
SedrakyanACampbellBMerinoJG, et al. IDEAL-D: a rational framework for evaluating and regulating the use of medical devices. BMJ2016; 353: i2372.
57.
HirstAPhilippouYBlazebyJ, et al. No surgical innovation without evaluation: evolution and further development of the IDEAL framework and recommendations. Ann Surg2019; 269(2): 211–220.
58.
ZachariasNWangGJSedrakyanA, et al. Review: using the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study Framework for Devices (IDEAL-D) to better understand the evolution of evidence surrounding fenestrated abdominal aortic endovascular grafts. Ann Vasc Surg. Epub ahead of print 19 April 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.avsg.2019.02.010.
59.
AilawadiGIungB.The TVT registry: collaboration leading to quality control. J Am Coll Cardiol2017; 69: 1231–1233.
60.
WyseRKHTaylorKM. The development of an international surgical registry: the ECSUR project. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg1999; 16(1): 2–8.
61.
AlpertJS.Are data from clinical registries of any value?Eur Heart J2000; 21: 1399–1401.
62.
MessengerJCHoKKLYoungCH, et al. The National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) data quality brief: the NCDR data quality program in 2012. J Am Coll Cardiol2012; 60(16): 1484–1488.
63.
DonaldsonL.Registering a need. BMJ1992; 305: 597–598.
64.
StokmansRATeijinkJAWForbesTL, et al. Early results from the ENGAGE registry: real-world performance of the endurant stent graft for endovascular AAA repair in 1262 patients. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2012; 44: 369–375.
65.
VerhoevenELGKatsargyrisABachooP, et al. Real-world performance of the new C3 Gore Excluder stent-graft: 1-year results from the European C3 module of the Global Registry for Endovascular Aortic Treatment (GREAT). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2014; 48(2): 131–137.
66.
MenyheiGBjörckMBeilesB, et al. Outcome following carotid endarterectomy: lessons learned from a large international vascular registry. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg2011; 41: 735–740.
67.
CzernyMEggebrechtHSodeckG, et al. New insights regarding the incidence, presentation and treatment options of aorto-oesophageal fistulation after thoracic endovascular aortic repair: the European Registry of Endovascular Aortic Repair Complications. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2014; 45(3): 452–457.
68.
ChaikofELBlankensteijnJDHarrisPL, et al. Reporting standards for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg2002; 35: 1048–1060.
69.
FriedmanLMFurbergCDDeMetsD, et al. Fundamentals of clinical trials. 5th ed.Berlin: Springer International Publishing, https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319185385 (2015, accessed 11 May 2018).
70.
Meeker-O’ConnellAGlessnerCBehmM, et al. Enhancing clinical evidence by proactively building quality into clinical trials. Clin Trials2016; 13(4): 439–444.
71.
PeekCJGlasgowREStangeKC, et al. The 5 R’s: an emerging bold standard for conducting relevant research in a changing world. Ann Fam Med2014; 12(5): 447–455.
72.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Real-world evidence generation and evaluation of therapeutics: proceedings of a workshop. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
73.
WeddellJM.Registers and registries: a review. Int J Epidemiol1973; 2: 221–228.
74.
HaugCJ.Turning the tables—the new European general data protection regulation. N Engl J Med2018; 379(3): 207–209.
75.
AnsmannEBHechtAHennDK, et al. The future of monitoring in clinical research—a holistic approach: linking risk-based monitoring with quality management principles. Ger Med Sci. ;11:Doc04. doi:10.3205/000172.
76.
TantsyuraVDunnIMWatersJ, et al. Extended risk-based monitoring model, on-demand query-driven source data verification, and their economic impact on clinical trial operations. Ther Innov Regul Sci2016; 50(1): 115–122.
77.
DreyerNA.Advancing a framework for regulatory use of real-world evidence: when real is reliable. Ther Innov Regul Sci2018; 52(3): 362–368.
78.
LoudonKTreweekSSullivanF, et al. The PRECIS-2 tool: designing trials that are fit for purpose. BMJ2015; 350: h2147.
79.
Dal-ReRJaniaudPIoannidisJPA. Real-world evidence: how pragmatic are randomized controlled trials labeled as pragmatic?BMC Med2018; 16(1): 49.
80.
WeinfurtKPHernandezAFCoronadoGD, et al. Pragmatic clinical trials embedded in healthcare systems: generalizable lessons from the NIH collaboratory. BMC Med Res Methodol2017; 17(1): 144.
81.
StengelDDreinhoferKKostujT.Influence of registries on the quality of care. Der Unfallchirurg2016; 119(6): 482–487.
82.
HerringtonWGGoldsackJCLandrayMJ.Increasing the use of mobile technology–derived endpoints in clinical trials. Clin Trials2018; 15(3): 313–315.
83.
GetzKAWengerJCampoRA, et al. Assessing the impact of protocol design changes on clinical trial performance. Am J Ther2008; 15(5): 450–457.
84.
BurgessLSulzerNU.The growing disparity between clinical trial complexity and investigator compensation. Cardiovasc J Afr2010; 21(5): 249–250.
BlumenthalS.The use of clinical registries in the United States: a landscape survey. eGEMS2017; 5: 26.
87.
TevaearaiHCarrelT.Editorial comment: clinical registries: yes, but then appropriately!Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2013; 44: 614–615.
88.
WhicherDMMillerJEDunhamKM, et al. Gatekeepers for pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials2015; 12(5): 442–448.
89.
NeugebauerEAMStausbergJ. Was Register leisten können und was nicht. Der Unfallchirurg2016; 119: 493–500.
90.
GalsworthyMJHristovskiDLusaL, et al. Academic output of 9 years of EU investment into health research. Lancet2012; 380(9846): 971–972.
91.
JainSHConwayPHBerwickDM.A public-private strategy to advance the use of clinical registries. Anesthesiology2012; 117(2): 227–229.
92.
IrvingEvan den BorRWelsingP, et al. Series: pragmatic trials and real world evidence: paper 7. Safety, quality and monitoring. J Clin Epidemiol2017; 91: 6–12.
93.
KramerJMSmithPBCaliffRM.Impediments to clinical research in the United States. Clin Pharmacol Ther2012; 91: 535–541.
94.
KockerlingF.The need for registries in the early scientific evaluation of surgical innovations. Front Surg2014; 1: 12.
95.
CaliffRMPetersonEDGibbonsRJ, et al. Integrating quality into the cycle of therapeutic development. J Am Coll Cardiol2002; 40(11): 1895–1901.
96.
McNamaraRL.Cardiovascular registry research comes of age. Heart2010; 96(12): 908–910.
97.
EichlerH-GSweeneyF.The evolution of clinical trials: can we address the challenges of the future?Clin Trials2018; 15(1_Suppl.): 27–32.
PlueschkeKMcGettiganPPacurariuA, et al. EU-funded initiatives for real world evidence: descriptive analysis of their characteristics and relevance for regulatory decision-making. BMJ Open2018; 8(6): e021864.
100.
GoldsteinCEWeijerCBrehautJC, et al. Ethical issues in pragmatic randomized controlled trials: a review of the recent literature identifies gaps in ethical argumentation. BMC Med Ethics2018; 19(1): 14.
101.
GodwinMRuhlandLCassonI, et al. Pragmatic controlled clinical trials in primary care: the struggle between external and internal validity. BMC Med Res Methodol2003; 3: 28.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
