[The German Transplant Registry - An Analysis of Legacy Data 2006-2016].

IF 0.7 4区 医学 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Gerd Otto, Klemens Budde, Christoph Bara, Jens Gottlieb
{"title":"[The German Transplant Registry - An Analysis of Legacy Data 2006-2016].","authors":"Gerd Otto, Klemens Budde, Christoph Bara, Jens Gottlieb","doi":"10.1055/a-2251-5627","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In 2018, medical transplant data from three institutions were merged to create a German transplant registry. Since June 2021, access to data of the registry has been available. It was planned to analyze the registry data in order to compare special allocation rules with regular allocation for heart, liver, lung, and kidney transplantation. Our approach led to a quality analysis of the registry.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Upon request, legacy data (2006-2016) of the registry was provided, divided into 61 elements. From these elements, the user had to compile the required dataset. Data checks were performed for completeness, correct allocation of information, and consistency among different sources. Software used for these tasks included R, SQL, and Excel.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The initial elements (\"waiting list\" elements) of the four types of transplantations contained data from a total of 80,259 originally listed patients. However, these patients were only partially present in other elements resulting in complete datasets reflecting waiting time in only 23%, 30%, 50%, and 96%, and for post-transplantation outcomes in 14%, 11%, 38%, and 13% (heart, liver, lung, and kidney transplantation, respectively). The linking of urgency information with clinical data was successful in only a small proportion, with only 6% for heart transplantation. Incorrect and thus implausible allocations in the case of special allocation rules indicated incorrect entries in the registry. Data from different data providers were inconsistent.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The incompleteness and incorrect data allocation raise doubts about the reliability of scientific studies based on the transplant registry. The complex structure also hinders the compilation of a reliable dataset, which is uncommon internationally. New data (acquisition since 2017) has only been available since December 2023.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The transplant registry urgently needs restructuring. Competent clinical data management, involving transplant medical expertise, and continuous quality controls are essential in this process.</p>","PeriodicalId":47653,"journal":{"name":"Gesundheitswesen","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gesundheitswesen","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2251-5627","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: In 2018, medical transplant data from three institutions were merged to create a German transplant registry. Since June 2021, access to data of the registry has been available. It was planned to analyze the registry data in order to compare special allocation rules with regular allocation for heart, liver, lung, and kidney transplantation. Our approach led to a quality analysis of the registry.

Methods: Upon request, legacy data (2006-2016) of the registry was provided, divided into 61 elements. From these elements, the user had to compile the required dataset. Data checks were performed for completeness, correct allocation of information, and consistency among different sources. Software used for these tasks included R, SQL, and Excel.

Results: The initial elements ("waiting list" elements) of the four types of transplantations contained data from a total of 80,259 originally listed patients. However, these patients were only partially present in other elements resulting in complete datasets reflecting waiting time in only 23%, 30%, 50%, and 96%, and for post-transplantation outcomes in 14%, 11%, 38%, and 13% (heart, liver, lung, and kidney transplantation, respectively). The linking of urgency information with clinical data was successful in only a small proportion, with only 6% for heart transplantation. Incorrect and thus implausible allocations in the case of special allocation rules indicated incorrect entries in the registry. Data from different data providers were inconsistent.

Discussion: The incompleteness and incorrect data allocation raise doubts about the reliability of scientific studies based on the transplant registry. The complex structure also hinders the compilation of a reliable dataset, which is uncommon internationally. New data (acquisition since 2017) has only been available since December 2023.

Conclusion: The transplant registry urgently needs restructuring. Competent clinical data management, involving transplant medical expertise, and continuous quality controls are essential in this process.

[德国移植登记处--2006-2016 年遗留数据分析]。
简介2018 年,来自三家机构的医疗移植数据合并,创建了德国移植登记处。自 2021 年 6 月起,可以访问该登记处的数据。我们计划对登记数据进行分析,以比较心脏、肝脏、肺脏和肾脏移植的特殊分配规则与常规分配规则。我们的方法是对登记数据进行质量分析:根据要求提供了登记处的遗留数据(2006-2016 年),分为 61 个要素。用户必须根据这些元素编制所需的数据集。对数据的完整性、信息的正确分配以及不同来源之间的一致性进行了检查。这些任务使用的软件包括 R、SQL 和 Excel:四种移植类型的初始元素("候选名单 "元素)共包含 80,259 名最初列入名单的患者的数据。然而,这些患者仅部分出现在其他元素中,导致只有 23%、30%、50% 和 96% 的完整数据集反映了等待时间,14%、11%、38% 和 13% 的完整数据集反映了移植后的结果(分别为心脏、肝脏、肺和肾移植)。将紧急程度信息与临床数据联系起来的成功率很低,只有 6% 的人成功进行了心脏移植。在特殊分配规则的情况下,不正确的因而也是不合理的分配表明登记册中的条目不正确。来自不同数据提供者的数据不一致:讨论:不完整和不正确的数据分配使人对基于移植登记册的科学研究的可靠性产生怀疑。复杂的结构也阻碍了可靠数据集的编制,这在国际上并不常见。新数据(自 2017 年起采集)自 2023 年 12 月才开始提供:移植登记处亟需重组。在这一过程中,合格的临床数据管理、移植医学专家的参与以及持续的质量控制至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Gesundheitswesen
Gesundheitswesen PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
18.20%
发文量
308
期刊介绍: The health service informs you comprehensively and up-to-date about the most important topics of the health care system. In addition to guidelines, overviews and comments, you will find current research results and contributions to CME-certified continuing education and training. The journal offers a scientific discussion forum and a platform for communications from professional societies. The content quality is ensured by a publisher body, the expert advisory board and other experts in the peer review process.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信