Population-based health registries can be valuable resources for public health research, particularly for studying rare diseases and long-term health outcomes, where more traditional observational and experimental designs often have insufficient sample size or follow-up time to adequately address the research question(s) of interest. In this issue, Tith et al1 demonstrate the utility of one such health registry for asking questions that are difficult to answer using more traditional study designs. Using hospitalization records for Quebec, Canada, from 2006 to 2018, they found that women who had been hospitalized for bulimia nervosa had higher incidence rates of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and death than women without bulimia who had experienced a pregnancy-related hospitalization. This research highlights the potential strength of registry data for informing interventions to enhance public health. Here, we offer thoughts on how to design and interpret registry-based studies to enhance validity.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
O’Brien KM, Keil AP. Design and Interpretation Considerations in Registry-Based Studies. JAMA Psychiatry. 2020;77(1):15–16. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.2234
Monkeypox Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.