4.3 Article

Nordic registry-based cohort studies: Possibilities and pitfalls when combining Nordic registry data

期刊

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 45, 期 -, 页码 14-19

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1403494817702336

关键词

Register data; register-based; Scandinavia; population-based

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council [D0547801]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: All five Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) have nationwide registries with similar data structure and validity, as well as personal identity numbers enabling linkage between registries. These resources provide opportunities for medical research that is based on large registry-based cohort studies with long and complete follow-up. This review describes practical aspects, opportunities and challenges encountered when setting up all-Nordic registry-based cohort studies. Methods: Relevant articles describing registries often used for medical research in the Nordic countries were retrieved. Further, our experiences of conducting this type of study, including planning, acquiring permissions, data retrieval and data cleaning and handling, and the possibilities and challenges we have encountered are described. Results: Combining data from the Nordic countries makes it possible to create large and powerful cohorts. The main challenges include obtaining all permissions within each country, usually in the local language, and retrieving the data. These challenges emphasise the importance of having experienced collaborators within each country. Following the acquisition of data, data management requires the understanding of the differences between the variables to be used in the various countries. A concern is the long time required between initiation and completion. Conclusions: Nationwide Nordic registries can be combined into cohorts with high validity and statistical power, but the considerable expertise, workload and time required to complete such cohorts should not be underestimated.

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

4.3
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