4.1 Article

European biliary atresia registries: Summary of a symposium

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY
卷 18, 期 2, 页码 111-116

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/s-2008-1038479

关键词

biliary atresia; registry; clinical research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biliary atresia (BA) is a rare but potentially devastating disease. The European Biliary Atresia Registry (EBAR) was set up to improve data collection and to develop a pan-national and interdisciplinary strategy to improve clinical outcomes. From 2001 to 2005, 100 centers from 22 countries registered with EBAR via its website (www.biliary-atresia.com). In June 2006, the first meeting was held to evaluate results and launch further initiatives. During a 5-year period, 60 centers from 19 European countries and Israel sent completed registration forms for a total of 514 BA patients. Assuming the estimated incidence of BA in Europe is 1:18000 live births, 35% of the expected 1488 patients from all EBAR participating countries were captured, suggesting that reporting arrangements need improvement. At the meeting, the cumulative evaluation of 928 BA patients including patients from other registries with variable follow-up revealed an overall survival of 78% (range from 41% to 92%), of whom 342 patients (37%) have had liver transplants. Survival with native liver ranged from 14% to 75%. There was a marked variance in reported management and outcome by country (e.g., referral patterns, timing of surgery, centralization of surgery). In conclusion, EBAR represents the first attempt at an overall evaluation of the outcome of BA from a pan-European perspective. The natural history and outcome of biliary atresia is of considerable relevance to a European population. It is essential that there is further support for a pan-European registry with coordination of clinical standards, further participation of parent support groups, and implementation of online data entry and multidisciplinary clinical and basic research projects.

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