肌萎缩性侧索硬化症流行病学监测综述

Christina Wolfson, Danielle Elizabeth Gauvin, Foluso Ishola, Maryam Oskoui, Boris Atabe
{"title":"肌萎缩性侧索硬化症流行病学监测综述","authors":"Christina Wolfson, Danielle Elizabeth Gauvin, Foluso Ishola, Maryam Oskoui, Boris Atabe","doi":"10.1101/2023.11.10.23297968","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Registries and clinical databases are important tools to systematically record and collect information about individuals with rare diseases and to monitor disease patterns in populations. Through a review of the published literature on strategies used for surveillance of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), our objective was to better delineate the varied approaches used to monitor ALS at a population level. Further, we sought to determine the potential of registries to enhance knowledge on the epidemiology of ALS using a case study comparing epidemiological outputs from registries in the United States, United Kingdom, and Italy. Summary: We searched Medline, Embase, Global Health, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL identifying articles published between January 1st, 2010, and May 12th, 2021. Studies describing population registries, cohorts of individuals with ALS, or large-scale studies aimed at systematically identifying people with ALS, were eligible for inclusion. 1,447 publications were found, of which 141 were selected for full text review, and 41 of those were selected for data extraction. We identified ALS registries and pertinent databases in 4 continents (North America, Europe, Asia, and Oceania). Stated objectives of the registries/databases shaped their framework, methodology, and follow-up. The US National Registry demonstrates substantial research outputs and methodological strengths, producing many descriptive epidemiological outputs (n=5 studies) and several methodological papers (n=12 studies). The UK and Italy overall each produced a similar number of studies (albeit with fewer methodological papers), across several different registries and regions. Key Messages: Due to challenges inherent to the surveillance of rare diseases, registries are a vital tool in determining and assessing the global impact of ALS. Nevertheless, the development and implementation of registries is not feasible everywhere in the world. There are advantages and drawbacks to structuring registries at a national or regional level, often dictated by funding availability, resources and health care infrastructure, and research objectives. To fully assess the epidemiological burden of ALS globally, collaborative initiatives are needed to fill gaps in knowledge, and there is a critical need to harmonize and optimize the development, collection, and sharing of data across registries.","PeriodicalId":478577,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Epidemiological Surveillance of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: A Review\",\"authors\":\"Christina Wolfson, Danielle Elizabeth Gauvin, Foluso Ishola, Maryam Oskoui, Boris Atabe\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2023.11.10.23297968\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Registries and clinical databases are important tools to systematically record and collect information about individuals with rare diseases and to monitor disease patterns in populations. Through a review of the published literature on strategies used for surveillance of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), our objective was to better delineate the varied approaches used to monitor ALS at a population level. Further, we sought to determine the potential of registries to enhance knowledge on the epidemiology of ALS using a case study comparing epidemiological outputs from registries in the United States, United Kingdom, and Italy. Summary: We searched Medline, Embase, Global Health, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL identifying articles published between January 1st, 2010, and May 12th, 2021. Studies describing population registries, cohorts of individuals with ALS, or large-scale studies aimed at systematically identifying people with ALS, were eligible for inclusion. 1,447 publications were found, of which 141 were selected for full text review, and 41 of those were selected for data extraction. We identified ALS registries and pertinent databases in 4 continents (North America, Europe, Asia, and Oceania). Stated objectives of the registries/databases shaped their framework, methodology, and follow-up. The US National Registry demonstrates substantial research outputs and methodological strengths, producing many descriptive epidemiological outputs (n=5 studies) and several methodological papers (n=12 studies). The UK and Italy overall each produced a similar number of studies (albeit with fewer methodological papers), across several different registries and regions. Key Messages: Due to challenges inherent to the surveillance of rare diseases, registries are a vital tool in determining and assessing the global impact of ALS. Nevertheless, the development and implementation of registries is not feasible everywhere in the world. There are advantages and drawbacks to structuring registries at a national or regional level, often dictated by funding availability, resources and health care infrastructure, and research objectives. To fully assess the epidemiological burden of ALS globally, collaborative initiatives are needed to fill gaps in knowledge, and there is a critical need to harmonize and optimize the development, collection, and sharing of data across registries.\",\"PeriodicalId\":478577,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"medRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"medRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.11.10.23297968\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.11.10.23297968","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:登记和临床数据库是系统地记录和收集罕见病个体信息和监测人群疾病模式的重要工具。通过对肌萎缩性侧索硬化症(ALS)监测策略的已发表文献的回顾,我们的目标是更好地描述在人群水平上用于监测ALS的各种方法。此外,我们试图通过比较美国、英国和意大利登记处的流行病学结果的案例研究来确定登记处在增强ALS流行病学知识方面的潜力。摘要:我们检索了Medline、Embase、Global Health、PsycInfo、Cochrane Library和CINAHL,确定了2010年1月1日至2021年5月12日之间发表的文章。描述人口登记、ALS患者队列或旨在系统识别ALS患者的大规模研究均符合纳入条件。共发现出版物1447篇,其中选择141篇进行全文审查,选择41篇进行数据提取。我们确定了4大洲(北美、欧洲、亚洲和大洋洲)的ALS登记和相关数据库。注册中心/数据库的既定目标决定了它们的框架、方法和后续工作。美国国家登记处展示了大量的研究成果和方法学优势,产生了许多描述性流行病学成果(n=5项研究)和几篇方法学论文(n=12项研究)。总体而言,英国和意大利在几个不同的注册中心和地区各自开展了类似数量的研究(尽管方法论论文较少)。关键信息:由于罕见病监测固有的挑战,登记是确定和评估ALS全球影响的重要工具。然而,登记处的发展和实施并非在世界各地都可行。在国家或区域一级建立登记处既有优点也有缺点,这往往取决于供资情况、资源和卫生保健基础设施以及研究目标。为了在全球范围内全面评估ALS的流行病学负担,需要采取协作行动来填补知识空白,并且迫切需要协调和优化各注册中心之间数据的开发、收集和共享。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Epidemiological Surveillance of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: A Review
Background: Registries and clinical databases are important tools to systematically record and collect information about individuals with rare diseases and to monitor disease patterns in populations. Through a review of the published literature on strategies used for surveillance of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), our objective was to better delineate the varied approaches used to monitor ALS at a population level. Further, we sought to determine the potential of registries to enhance knowledge on the epidemiology of ALS using a case study comparing epidemiological outputs from registries in the United States, United Kingdom, and Italy. Summary: We searched Medline, Embase, Global Health, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL identifying articles published between January 1st, 2010, and May 12th, 2021. Studies describing population registries, cohorts of individuals with ALS, or large-scale studies aimed at systematically identifying people with ALS, were eligible for inclusion. 1,447 publications were found, of which 141 were selected for full text review, and 41 of those were selected for data extraction. We identified ALS registries and pertinent databases in 4 continents (North America, Europe, Asia, and Oceania). Stated objectives of the registries/databases shaped their framework, methodology, and follow-up. The US National Registry demonstrates substantial research outputs and methodological strengths, producing many descriptive epidemiological outputs (n=5 studies) and several methodological papers (n=12 studies). The UK and Italy overall each produced a similar number of studies (albeit with fewer methodological papers), across several different registries and regions. Key Messages: Due to challenges inherent to the surveillance of rare diseases, registries are a vital tool in determining and assessing the global impact of ALS. Nevertheless, the development and implementation of registries is not feasible everywhere in the world. There are advantages and drawbacks to structuring registries at a national or regional level, often dictated by funding availability, resources and health care infrastructure, and research objectives. To fully assess the epidemiological burden of ALS globally, collaborative initiatives are needed to fill gaps in knowledge, and there is a critical need to harmonize and optimize the development, collection, and sharing of data across registries.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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