欧洲骨科创伤登记:来自比利时、希腊、德国、荷兰、西班牙和英国的观点。

Lynn Hutchings, Guy Putzeys, Christina Arnaoutoglou, Zoe Dailiana, Kees Jan Ponsen, Pieter Joosse, Frank Bloemers, Francisco Chana-Rodriguez, Jesus Gomez-Vallejo, Hector Aguado-Hernández
{"title":"欧洲骨科创伤登记:来自比利时、希腊、德国、荷兰、西班牙和英国的观点。","authors":"Lynn Hutchings, Guy Putzeys, Christina Arnaoutoglou, Zoe Dailiana, Kees Jan Ponsen, Pieter Joosse, Frank Bloemers, Francisco Chana-Rodriguez, Jesus Gomez-Vallejo, Hector Aguado-Hernández","doi":"10.1097/OI9.0000000000000407","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To provide an overview of the current status and future directions of trauma registries across Europe, with specific examples from a range of countries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Member countries of the International Orthopaedic Trauma Association were contacted to provide information on the development, current position, and future plans for trauma registries within their countries. Responses were received from 6 countries-Belgium, Greece, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom-providing an overview of practice across Europe.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The background, evolution, and current status of trauma registries varies widely across Europe from highly mature systems to those in the early stages of development. Funding process, data management, and governance also differ between countries.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The trauma registries of Germany and the United Kingdom are the most mature and have provided the greatest output for research to date. However, the development of registries in other European countries will allow an increase in comparative data which can be used to drive standards for trauma care. Countries with more evolved registries can provide useful insights to those in development to assist in set-up and improve collaboration.</p>","PeriodicalId":74381,"journal":{"name":"OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma","volume":"8 4 Suppl","pages":"e407"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12337250/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"European orthopaedic trauma registries: perspectives from Belgium, Greece, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom.\",\"authors\":\"Lynn Hutchings, Guy Putzeys, Christina Arnaoutoglou, Zoe Dailiana, Kees Jan Ponsen, Pieter Joosse, Frank Bloemers, Francisco Chana-Rodriguez, Jesus Gomez-Vallejo, Hector Aguado-Hernández\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/OI9.0000000000000407\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To provide an overview of the current status and future directions of trauma registries across Europe, with specific examples from a range of countries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Member countries of the International Orthopaedic Trauma Association were contacted to provide information on the development, current position, and future plans for trauma registries within their countries. Responses were received from 6 countries-Belgium, Greece, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom-providing an overview of practice across Europe.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The background, evolution, and current status of trauma registries varies widely across Europe from highly mature systems to those in the early stages of development. Funding process, data management, and governance also differ between countries.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The trauma registries of Germany and the United Kingdom are the most mature and have provided the greatest output for research to date. However, the development of registries in other European countries will allow an increase in comparative data which can be used to drive standards for trauma care. Countries with more evolved registries can provide useful insights to those in development to assist in set-up and improve collaboration.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74381,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma\",\"volume\":\"8 4 Suppl\",\"pages\":\"e407\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12337250/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/OI9.0000000000000407\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/8/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/OI9.0000000000000407","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:概述整个欧洲创伤登记的现状和未来方向,并提供来自一系列国家的具体例子。方法:联系国际骨科创伤协会的成员国,提供有关其国内创伤登记的发展、现状和未来计划的信息。收到了来自6个国家的回复——比利时、希腊、德国、荷兰、西班牙和英国——提供了整个欧洲实践的概述。结果:创伤登记的背景、演变和现状在欧洲各地差异很大,从高度成熟的系统到处于早期发展阶段的系统。筹资过程、数据管理和治理也因国而异。结论:德国和英国的创伤登记处是最成熟的,迄今为止提供了最大的研究成果。然而,在其他欧洲国家登记的发展将允许增加可用于推动创伤护理标准的比较数据。拥有更完善的登记处的国家可以为发展中国家提供有用的见解,以协助建立和改善合作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
European orthopaedic trauma registries: perspectives from Belgium, Greece, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

Objectives: To provide an overview of the current status and future directions of trauma registries across Europe, with specific examples from a range of countries.

Methods: Member countries of the International Orthopaedic Trauma Association were contacted to provide information on the development, current position, and future plans for trauma registries within their countries. Responses were received from 6 countries-Belgium, Greece, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom-providing an overview of practice across Europe.

Results: The background, evolution, and current status of trauma registries varies widely across Europe from highly mature systems to those in the early stages of development. Funding process, data management, and governance also differ between countries.

Conclusions: The trauma registries of Germany and the United Kingdom are the most mature and have provided the greatest output for research to date. However, the development of registries in other European countries will allow an increase in comparative data which can be used to drive standards for trauma care. Countries with more evolved registries can provide useful insights to those in development to assist in set-up and improve collaboration.

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
审稿时长
4 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信