4.1 Article

The Canadian Registry for Pulmonary Fibrosis: Design and Rationale of a National Pulmonary Fibrosis Registry

期刊

CANADIAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
卷 2016, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2016/3562923

关键词

-

资金

  1. Boehringer-Ingelheim
  2. Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. The relative rarity and diversity of fibrotic interstitial lung disease (ILD) have made it challenging to study these diseases in single-centre cohorts. Here we describe formation of a multicentre Canadian registry that is needed to describe the outcomes of fibrotic ILD and to enable detailed healthcare utilization analyses that will be the cornerstone for future healthcare planning. Methods. The Canadian Registry for Pulmonary Fibrosis (CARE-PF) is a prospective cohort anticipated to consist of at least 2,800 patients with fibrotic ILD. CARE-PF will be used to (1) describe the natural history of fibrotic ILD, specifically determining the incidence and outcomes of acute exacerbations of ILD subtypes and (2) determine the impact of ILD and acute exacerbations of ILD on health services use and healthcare costs in the Canadian population. Consecutive patients with fibrotic ILD will be recruited from five Canadian ILD centres over a period of five years. Patients will be followed up as clinically indicated and will complete standardized questionnaires at each clinic visit. Prespecified outcomes and health services use will be measured based on self-report and linkage to provincial health administrative databases. Conclusion. CARE-PF will be among the largest prospective multicentre ILD registries in the world, providing detailed data on the natural history of fibrotic ILD and the healthcare resources used by these patients. As the largest and most comprehensive cohort of Canadian ILD patients, CARE-PF establishes a network for future clinical research and early phase clinical trials and provides a platform for translational and basic science research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据