Response by Dawson et al to Letter Regarding Article, "Characteristics and Quality of National Cardiac Registries: A Systematic Review"

HomeCirculation: Cardiovascular Quality and OutcomesVol. 15, No. 9Response by Dawson et al to Letter Regarding Article, “Characteristics and Quality of National Cardiac Registries: A Systematic Review” Free AccessLetterPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessLetterPDF/EPUBResponse by Dawson et al to Letter Regarding Article, “Characteristics and Quality of National Cardiac Registries: A Systematic Review” Luke P. Dawson, Christopher Reid and David Eccleston Luke P. DawsonLuke P. Dawson https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3789-5808 Department of Cardiology, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (L.P.D., D.E.). Department of Cardiology, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (L.P.D.). Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (L.P.D., C.R.). Search for more papers by this author , Christopher ReidChristopher Reid https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9173-3944 Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (L.P.D., C.R.). Curtin School of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia (C.R.). Search for more papers by this author and David EcclestonDavid Eccleston Correspondence to: David Eccleston, MBBS, MMedSci, Department of Cardiology, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, 300 Grattan St, Parkville 3050, Victoria, Australia. Email E-mail Address: [email protected] Department of Cardiology, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (L.P.D., D.E.). Department of Medicine, Melbourne University, Victoria, Australia (D.E.). Search for more papers by this author Originally published6 Sep 2022https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.122.009257Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. 2022;15Other version(s) of this articleYou are viewing the most recent version of this article. Previous versions: September 6, 2022: Ahead of Print In Response:We thank Vermeer et al1 for their interest in our recent article regarding national cardiac registries. The authors’ raise a relevant point, which highlights the useful role for cardiac registries in assessing disparities in health care delivery and outcomes for minority groups including underrepresented ethnicities. Certainly, there has been a greater understanding of the importance of diversity and equity research in recent decades, with many journals developing special issues specifically devoted to this topic.2 In Australia, a focus of health policy has been to improve health outcomes for Indigenous Australians, and cardiovascular registries have been useful in assessing differences in care among patients undergoing cardiac procedures.3The purpose of our review was largely to assess the data quality of cardiovascular registries at the national level. The modified quality score presented is focussed on whether registries capture their target at-risk population, whether the data are accurate, and how this is checked or audited by the registry. Selecting which variables to include in a registry is clearly an extremely important part of registry development, often with the challenge of striking a balance between obtaining as much information as possible during data collection, without making the data collection processes too time-intensive, costly, or complicated. Given the broad nature of our review and the heterogeneity of included registries across multiple domains of cardiovascular medicine, we felt that standard criteria for scoring variable selection would be difficult to develop and was outside the scope of the review.In recent years, several guidelines have been developed regarding appropriate reporting of race and ethnicity in medical and scientific literature.4 These guidelines can be broadly applied to medical research including registry-based studies in addition to clinical trials. Therefore, these guidelines are an appropriate tool to use in determining which variables to include during registry development, in the same way that disease- or procedure-specific clinical guidelines might be used to select appropriate disease- or procedure-specific variables to include. The inclusion of other variables that relate to health disparities such as age, sex, socioeconomic status, and remoteness and access indicators should also be considered.Overall, we agree with the authors that registry-based ethnicity data plays an important role in the assessment of health outcomes disparities. When these variables are included in registries, the quality score in our study can be used to assess whether these data are complete, appropriately defined, and whether the data are accurate and audited.Article InformationDisclosures None.FootnotesFor Disclosures, see page 751.Correspondence to: David Eccleston, MBBS, MMedSci, Department of Cardiology, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, 300 Grattan St, Parkville 3050, Victoria, Australia. Email david.[email protected]org.auReferences1. Dawson LP, Biswas S, Lefkovits J, Stub D, Burchill L, Evans SM, Reid C, Eccleston D. Characteristics and quality of national cardiac registries: a systematic review.Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2021; 14:e007963. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.121.007963LinkGoogle Scholar2. Albert MA, Carnethon MR, Watson KE. Disparities in cardiovascular medicine.Circulation. 2021; 143:2319–2320. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.055565LinkGoogle Scholar3. Dawson LP, Burchill L, O’Brien J, Dinh D, Duffy SJ, Stub D, Brennan A, Clark D, Oqueli E, Hiew C, et al; Melbourne Interventional Group Investigators.Differences in outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in Victoria, Australia: a multicentre, prospective, observational, cohort study.Lancet Glob Health. 2021; 9:e1296–e1304. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00224-2CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Flanagin A, Frey T, Christiansen SL; AMA Manual of Style Committee.Updated guidance on the reporting of race and ethnicity in medical and science journals.JAMA. 2021; 326:621–627. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.13304CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails September 2022Vol 15, Issue 9 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics © 2022 American Heart Association, Inc.https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.122.009257PMID: 36065813 Originally publishedSeptember 6, 2022 PDF download Advertisement