TY - JOUR
T1 - Characteristics of intensive care unit registries-findings from the Global Registry ICU Datasets (GRID) survey
AU - GRID investigators of the Linking of Global Intensive Care (LOGIC)
AU - Pisani, Luigi
AU - Di Lecce, Paola
AU - Sendagire, Cornelius
AU - Pari, Vrindha
AU - Olivieri, Carlo
AU - Uddin, Rabiul Alam Md Erfam
AU - Aryal, Diptesh
AU - Athapattu, Priyantha
AU - Bagshaw, Sean
AU - Burghi, Gaston
AU - Buanes, Eirik Alnes
AU - Christensen, Steffen
AU - Dwyer, Rory
AU - Fernández, Ariel Leonardo
AU - Finazzi, Stefano
AU - Guidet, Bertrand
AU - Harrison, David
AU - Hanciles, Eva
AU - Hashmi, Madiha
AU - Hashimoto, Satoru
AU - Ichihara, Nao
AU - Lone, Nazir I.
AU - López, Maria Del Pilar Arias
AU - Minh, Yen L.
AU - Perren, Andreas
AU - Phommasone, Koukeo
AU - Pilcher, David
AU - Reinikainen, Matti
AU - Waweru-Siika, Wangari
AU - Siaw-Frimpong, Moses
AU - Sigurdsson, Martin I.
AU - Shamal, Maryam
AU - Sultan, Menbeu
AU - Palo, Jose Emmanuel M.
AU - Thomson, David
AU - Vijayaraghavan, Bharath Kumar Tirupakuzhi
AU - Beane, Abigail
AU - Haniffa, Rashan
AU - Dongelmans, Dave A.
AU - Lipcsey, Miklos
AU - Salluh, Jorge Ibrain Figueira
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2026, Associacao de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira - AMIB. All rights reserved.
PY - 2026
Y1 - 2026
N2 - Background: Intensive care unit registries, which aim to improve the quality of intensive care unit care through benchmarking and quality improvement initiatives, are active worldwide, with considerable dishomogeneity. We aimed to map core datasets, additional variables, and research activities of these registries. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was disseminated to registry leads between October 2023 and June 2024. The survey was structured into four main topics: registry characteristics and coverage, core dataset features, additional modules, and registry-enabled research. Results: Leads of 34/42 national registries responded (response rate 81%), covering 3,337 intensive care units, with a larger representation from South America. Systematized nomenclature of medicine, clinical terms, and customized categorical classifications were the main nomenclatures used. All registries except one employed a severity of illness score/risk prediction model. The SOFA score was reported by 88% of registries. Organ support measures were often recorded, including mechanical ventilation (97%), vasopressor administration (86%) and renal replacement therapy (86%). Three out of four intensive care unit registries coded interventions such as intubations, intravenous lines and tracheostomies. Additional datasets differed, with many use cases for nosocomial infection burden, bed availability and staffing resources. Over half of intensive care unit registries had current structured quality improvement initiatives. Registry-enabled observational research was reported in 46% of registries, while interventional studies were reported in only 22%. Conclusion: Over three thousand intensive care units in 35 countries participate in an intensive care unit registry. Despite heterogeneity in coding systems, risk models, and additional datasets, we identify several areas of convergence that may inform a future shared core dataset. There is potential for further intensive care unit registry-based research, particularly interventional.
AB - Background: Intensive care unit registries, which aim to improve the quality of intensive care unit care through benchmarking and quality improvement initiatives, are active worldwide, with considerable dishomogeneity. We aimed to map core datasets, additional variables, and research activities of these registries. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was disseminated to registry leads between October 2023 and June 2024. The survey was structured into four main topics: registry characteristics and coverage, core dataset features, additional modules, and registry-enabled research. Results: Leads of 34/42 national registries responded (response rate 81%), covering 3,337 intensive care units, with a larger representation from South America. Systematized nomenclature of medicine, clinical terms, and customized categorical classifications were the main nomenclatures used. All registries except one employed a severity of illness score/risk prediction model. The SOFA score was reported by 88% of registries. Organ support measures were often recorded, including mechanical ventilation (97%), vasopressor administration (86%) and renal replacement therapy (86%). Three out of four intensive care unit registries coded interventions such as intubations, intravenous lines and tracheostomies. Additional datasets differed, with many use cases for nosocomial infection burden, bed availability and staffing resources. Over half of intensive care unit registries had current structured quality improvement initiatives. Registry-enabled observational research was reported in 46% of registries, while interventional studies were reported in only 22%. Conclusion: Over three thousand intensive care units in 35 countries participate in an intensive care unit registry. Despite heterogeneity in coding systems, risk models, and additional datasets, we identify several areas of convergence that may inform a future shared core dataset. There is potential for further intensive care unit registry-based research, particularly interventional.
KW - Data collection
KW - Dataset
KW - Intensive care units
KW - Internet
KW - Outcomes
KW - Quality control
KW - Quality improvement
KW - Registries
KW - Registry-enabled research
KW - Survey and questionnaires
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105028664183
U2 - 10.62675/2965-2774.20260168
DO - 10.62675/2965-2774.20260168
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:105028664183
SN - 0103-507X
VL - 38
JO - Critical Care Science
JF - Critical Care Science
M1 - e20260168
ER -