Paving the Path to Value: The Role of Registry Studies in Interventional Radiology

Abstract

The growth rate of interventional radiology (IR) procedures and practitioners has exceeded the pace of evidence development to support evidence-based practice. In the innovative and highly adaptive field of IR, there exists a tremendous need for interventional radiologists to practice evidence-based medicine as a way to maintain and improve quality of health care. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered to be the gold standard of research, providing level I evidence, but in procedural subspecialties, they remain difficult to design and implement due to challenges in randomization, blinding, and inadequate sample size. To build the foundation of evidence in IR, registry studies can play a complementary role to RCTs. Clinical data registries may offer a more practical approach to gathering outcomes data, important in this era with the advent of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA), in comparison with RCTs. Properly designed registries can store an abundance of data with which high-quality observational studies can be performed. Although considered level II evidence, these registry studies will allow the evaluation of both performance and value of IR procedures, particularly in circumstances in which an RCT would not be feasible. This manuscript aims to serve as a guide for developing and participating in IR registry studies.

Keywords

evidence-based medicine - clinical data registry - randomized controlled trial

• References

• 1 Unger CA, Barber MD. Studying surgical innovations: challenges of the randomized controlled trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2015; 22 (04) 573-582
• 2 Hong SJ, Yoon DY, Cho YK. et al. Characteristics and quality of radiologic randomized controlled trials: a bibliometric analysis between 1995 and 2014. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016; 206 (05) 917-923
• 3 Registries for Evaluating Patient Outcomes. A User's Guide. 3rd ed.. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2014
• 4 Benson K, Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med 2000; 342 (25) 1878-1886
• 5 Anglemyer A, Horvath HT, Bero L. Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 4: MR000034
• 6 Ballah D, Cochran R, Dong P. et al. Outcomes of the University of California Invasive Placenta Registry: how different adjunctive procedures reduce intraoperative blood loss during cesarean hysterectomy. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2018; 29 (04) S130
• 7 Standardized Reporting. https://www.sirweb.org/practice-resources/quality-improvement2/standardized-reporting/
• 8 Psoter KJ, Rosenfeld M. Opportunities and pitfalls of registry data for clinical research. Paediatr Respir Rev 2013; 14 (03) 141-145
• 9 Rothman KJ, Wentworth III CE. Mortality of cystic fibrosis patients treated with tobramycin solution for inhalation. Epidemiology 2003; 14 (01) 55-59
• 10 Triple Aim Framework IHI. www.ihi.org
• 11 Friedman CP, Wong AK, Blumenthal D. Achieving a nationwide learning health system. Sci Transl Med 2010; 2 (57) 57cm29
• 12 Uberoi R, Das N, Moss J, Robertson I. British Society of Interventional Radiology: Biliary Drainage and Stenting Registry (BDSR) Cardiovasc. Intervent Radiol 2012; 35 (01) 127-138
• 13 Dykes TM, Bhargavan-Chatfield M, Dyer RB. Intravenous contrast extravasation during CT: a national data registry and practice quality improvement initiative. J Am Coll Radiol 2015; 12 (02) 183-191