Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 2
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Berti, Elena and De Palma, Rossana 2016. Registries for health technology assessment: Back to the future. International Journal of Cardiology, Vol. 207, p. 125.

    Gratwohl, Alois Iacobelli, Simona Bootsman, Natalia van Biezen, Anja Baldomero, Helen Arcese, William Arnold, Renate Bron, Dominique Cordonnier, Catherine Ernst, Peter Ferrant, Augustin Frassoni, Francesco Gahrton, Gösta Richard, Carlos Kolb, Hans Jochem Link, Hartmut Niederwieser, Dietger Ruutu, Tapani Schattenberg, Anton Schmitz, Norbert Torres-Gomez, Antonio Zwaan, Ferry Apperley, Jane Olavarria, Eduardo and Kröger, Nicolaus 2016. Splenic irradiation before hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for chronic myeloid leukemia: long-term follow-up of a prospective randomized study. Annals of Hematology, Vol. 95, Issue. 6, p. 967.

  • International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Volume 30, Issue 1
  • January 2014, pp. 28-33


  • Jayne Taylor (a1), Hannah Patrick (a2), Georgios Lyratzopoulos (a3) and Bruce Campbell (a2)
  • DOI:
  • Published online: 12 March 2014

Objectives: Procedures and new medical devices are typically introduced into healthcare systems with limited evidence, when they might be ineffective or unsafe. Systematic data collection (“registers”) can provide valuable “real world” evidence, but difficulties in funding registers are a major obstacle. A good economic case for the value of registers would therefore be useful.

Methods: (i) Literature search on specific purposes of registers. (ii) Surveys (a) of senior clinicians involved with registers, seeking examples of beneficial outcomes, and (b) of administrators, regarding costs of running registers. (iii) A scoping exercise for possible methods to value (financially) the outputs of registers.

Results: Four main categories of beneficial outcomes from registers were identified. These were—safety and quality assurance; training and quality improvement; complementing trial evidence and reducing uncertainty; and supporting trial research. Explicit examples of all these are presented, together with information about the costs of registers. Combining these with the scoping exercise we present suggestions for a methodology of assessing the value of registers across each of the categories.

Conclusions: This study is unique in addressing methods for determining the financial value of registers, based on the amount they cost versus the financial benefits which may result from the evidence generated. Developing the suggested methods could support the case for funding new registers, by showing that their use can benefit healthcare systems through more efficient use of resources, so justifying their costs.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

1.G Lyratzopoulos , H Patrick , B Campbell . Registers needed for new interventional procedures. Lancet. 2008;371:17341736.

2.P Wilmshurst . The regulation of medical devices: Unsatisfactory, unscientific and in need of a major overhaul. BMJ. 2010;342:d2822

3.T Dent , S Wortley , B Campbell . New interventional procedures. BMJ. 2004;329:34

4.D Wennberg , FL Lucas , JD Birkmeyer , CE Bredenberg , ES Fisher . Variation in carotid endarterectomy mortality in the Medicare population: Trial hospitals, volume, and patient characteristics. JAMA. 1998;279:12781281.

5.JS Barkun , JK Aronson , LS Feldman , et al.Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations. Lancet. 2009;374:10891096.

6.SE Graves . The value of arthroplasty registry data. Acta Orthop. 2010;81:89.

8.CR Smith , MB Leon , MJ Mack , et al.Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:21872198.

12.K Davenport , AG Timoney , FX Keeley , et al.A 3-year review of The British Association of Urological Surgeons Section of Endourology Laparoscopic Nephrectomy Audit. BJU Int. 2005;97:333337.

13.NA Dreyer , S Garner . Registries for robust evidence. JAMA. 2009;302:790791.

16.N Sibanda , LP Copley , JD Lewsey , et al.Revision rates after primary hip and knee replacement in England between 2003 and 2006. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e179.

17.EW Paxton , RS Namba , GB Maletis , et al.A prospective study of 80,000 total joint and 5000 anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction procedures in a community-based registry in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92 (Suppl 2):117132.

20.R Grilli , F Taroni . Managing the introduction of expensive medical procedures: Use of a registry. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2006;11:8993.

21.SM Thomas , JD Beard , M Ireland , S Ayers . Results from the prospective registry of endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms (RETA): Mid term results to five years. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2005;29:563570.

24.S Larsson , P Lawyer , G Garellick , B Lindahl , M Lundstrom . Use of 13 disease registries in 5 countries demonstrates the potential to use outcome data to improve health care's value. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31:220227.

25.D Cohen . Out of joint: The story of the ASR. BMJ. 2011;342:11161122.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *