Jonah J. C. Thomas, Stefanie Lanzinger, Kathrine Kold Soerensen, Henrik Imberg, Stefanie Schmid, Emma Barron, Reinhard Holl, Ulrik Pedersen-Bjergaard, Amanda Adler, Martina Vettoretti, Shivani Misra, Jonathan Valabhji, Kamlesh Khunti, Marcus Lind, Christian Torp-Pedersen, Julia K. Mader, Pratik Choudhary, the REDDIE study group
{"title":"REDDIE项目中四个欧洲国家糖尿病登记的队列描述和比较。","authors":"Jonah J. C. Thomas, Stefanie Lanzinger, Kathrine Kold Soerensen, Henrik Imberg, Stefanie Schmid, Emma Barron, Reinhard Holl, Ulrik Pedersen-Bjergaard, Amanda Adler, Martina Vettoretti, Shivani Misra, Jonathan Valabhji, Kamlesh Khunti, Marcus Lind, Christian Torp-Pedersen, Julia K. Mader, Pratik Choudhary, the REDDIE study group","doi":"10.1111/dme.70112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aims</h3>\n \n <p>The Real-world Evidence for Decisions in Diabetes (REDDIE) project aims to better understand how to use real-world data (RWD) to advance research related to diabetes. To achieve this aim, four national registries (National Diabetes Audit (NDA (England)), Diabetes Patienten Verlaufsdokumentation (DPV (Germany)), Swedish National Registries (NDR), Danish National Registries (DNR)) are contributing data to the REDDIE project. This publication aims to describe the four registries and compare their unique strengths and limitations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Data regarding the four registries were extracted from their inception until 2024. Data regarding demographics, prescriptions, outcomes, lifestyle and diabetes-specific variables (usage of continuous glucose monitors) were summarised.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A core set of variables was identified across all four registries in the REDDIE project. Demographic information, diabetes-related medication, measures of glycaemic control and lifestyle factors are measured in all four registries. The DNR, NDA and NDR also contain wider prescription data, diagnosis data (cardiovascular disease, retinopathy) and mortality data. The DPV registry does not contain these data but contains detailed data on continuous glucose monitor and insulin pump usage. Differences in the methodologies employed and data fields collected were identified, including in data collection techniques, linkage processes, follow-up protocols and the range of variables recorded. Even with this diversity in data collection, there remains a significant opportunity to perform collaborative analysis between the registries. By combining RWD collected in different populations and health care systems with diverse demographics, the transferability of evidence will increase, enabling research studies to be more representative and inclusive of diverse populations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The four registries that make up the REDDIE project contain many commonly collected variables. However, each registry presents specific strengths and limitations. By including all four databases, the REDDIE project benefits from the complementary strengths of each database.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":11251,"journal":{"name":"Diabetic Medicine","volume":"42 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/dme.70112","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A cohort description and comparison of four European national diabetes registries for the REDDIE project\",\"authors\":\"Jonah J. C. Thomas, Stefanie Lanzinger, Kathrine Kold Soerensen, Henrik Imberg, Stefanie Schmid, Emma Barron, Reinhard Holl, Ulrik Pedersen-Bjergaard, Amanda Adler, Martina Vettoretti, Shivani Misra, Jonathan Valabhji, Kamlesh Khunti, Marcus Lind, Christian Torp-Pedersen, Julia K. Mader, Pratik Choudhary, the REDDIE study group\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/dme.70112\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aims</h3>\\n \\n <p>The Real-world Evidence for Decisions in Diabetes (REDDIE) project aims to better understand how to use real-world data (RWD) to advance research related to diabetes. To achieve this aim, four national registries (National Diabetes Audit (NDA (England)), Diabetes Patienten Verlaufsdokumentation (DPV (Germany)), Swedish National Registries (NDR), Danish National Registries (DNR)) are contributing data to the REDDIE project. This publication aims to describe the four registries and compare their unique strengths and limitations.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Data regarding the four registries were extracted from their inception until 2024. Data regarding demographics, prescriptions, outcomes, lifestyle and diabetes-specific variables (usage of continuous glucose monitors) were summarised.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>A core set of variables was identified across all four registries in the REDDIE project. Demographic information, diabetes-related medication, measures of glycaemic control and lifestyle factors are measured in all four registries. The DNR, NDA and NDR also contain wider prescription data, diagnosis data (cardiovascular disease, retinopathy) and mortality data. The DPV registry does not contain these data but contains detailed data on continuous glucose monitor and insulin pump usage. Differences in the methodologies employed and data fields collected were identified, including in data collection techniques, linkage processes, follow-up protocols and the range of variables recorded. Even with this diversity in data collection, there remains a significant opportunity to perform collaborative analysis between the registries. By combining RWD collected in different populations and health care systems with diverse demographics, the transferability of evidence will increase, enabling research studies to be more representative and inclusive of diverse populations.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>The four registries that make up the REDDIE project contain many commonly collected variables. However, each registry presents specific strengths and limitations. By including all four databases, the REDDIE project benefits from the complementary strengths of each database.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11251,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diabetic Medicine\",\"volume\":\"42 11\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/dme.70112\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diabetic Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dme.70112\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diabetic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dme.70112","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
A cohort description and comparison of four European national diabetes registries for the REDDIE project
Aims
The Real-world Evidence for Decisions in Diabetes (REDDIE) project aims to better understand how to use real-world data (RWD) to advance research related to diabetes. To achieve this aim, four national registries (National Diabetes Audit (NDA (England)), Diabetes Patienten Verlaufsdokumentation (DPV (Germany)), Swedish National Registries (NDR), Danish National Registries (DNR)) are contributing data to the REDDIE project. This publication aims to describe the four registries and compare their unique strengths and limitations.
Methods
Data regarding the four registries were extracted from their inception until 2024. Data regarding demographics, prescriptions, outcomes, lifestyle and diabetes-specific variables (usage of continuous glucose monitors) were summarised.
Results
A core set of variables was identified across all four registries in the REDDIE project. Demographic information, diabetes-related medication, measures of glycaemic control and lifestyle factors are measured in all four registries. The DNR, NDA and NDR also contain wider prescription data, diagnosis data (cardiovascular disease, retinopathy) and mortality data. The DPV registry does not contain these data but contains detailed data on continuous glucose monitor and insulin pump usage. Differences in the methodologies employed and data fields collected were identified, including in data collection techniques, linkage processes, follow-up protocols and the range of variables recorded. Even with this diversity in data collection, there remains a significant opportunity to perform collaborative analysis between the registries. By combining RWD collected in different populations and health care systems with diverse demographics, the transferability of evidence will increase, enabling research studies to be more representative and inclusive of diverse populations.
Conclusion
The four registries that make up the REDDIE project contain many commonly collected variables. However, each registry presents specific strengths and limitations. By including all four databases, the REDDIE project benefits from the complementary strengths of each database.
期刊介绍：
Diabetic Medicine, the official journal of Diabetes UK, is published monthly simultaneously, in print and online editions.
The journal publishes a range of key information on all clinical aspects of diabetes mellitus, ranging from human genetic studies through clinical physiology and trials to diabetes epidemiology. We do not publish original animal or cell culture studies unless they are part of a study of clinical diabetes involving humans. Categories of publication include research articles, reviews, editorials, commentaries, and correspondence. All material is peer-reviewed.
We aim to disseminate knowledge about diabetes research with the goal of improving the management of people with diabetes. The journal therefore seeks to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas between clinicians and researchers worldwide. Topics covered are of importance to all healthcare professionals working with people with diabetes, whether in primary care or specialist services.
Surplus generated from the sale of Diabetic Medicine is used by Diabetes UK to know diabetes better and fight diabetes more effectively on behalf of all people affected by and at risk of diabetes as well as their families and carers.”
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
