Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The IRIS® Registry

Purpose and perspectives

Das IRIS®-Register

Zweck und Perspektiven

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Ophthalmologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The American Academy of Ophthalmology IRIS® Registry (Intelligent Research in Sight) launched about 2 years ago and has already become the largest national clinical specialty data registry with nearly 50 million patient visits and over 14 million unique patients. The purpose of the registry is to support and promote continued improvement in the delivery of eye care. The perspectives that “big data” encompass are the key issues facing ophthalmology and eye care, including public health and public policy concerning disease incidence and prevalence, utilization of eye care services, natural history of disease, disease surveillance, comparative effectiveness, safety and adverse event monitoring, compliance with “best practices” and clinical guidelines, etc. The valuable real-world and current-day insights provided by the IRIS Registry and other registries like it will accelerate scientific learning and improvements in care delivery, particularly in a cost-constrained environment.

Zusammenfassung

Vor knapp zwei Jahren hat die American Academy of Ophthalmology das Intelligent-Research-in-Sight(IRIS®)-Register eingerichtet. Mit fast 50 Mio. Arztbesuchen und über 14 Mio. einzelnen Patienten ist es bereits jetzt die größte nationale Datenbank eines klinischen Fachbereichs. Das Register hat zum Ziel, eine kontinuierliche Verbesserung der ophthalmologischen Versorgung zu fördern und voranzutreiben. Die Möglichkeiten von „Big Data“, also der Sammlung und Auswertung großer Datenmengen, sind entscheidend für künftige Forschungsbemühungen in der Augenheilkunde. Dies schließt den Public-Health-Bereich und gesundheitspolitische Strategien ein, unter anderem in Bezug auf folgende Themen: Inzidenz und Prävalenz von Erkrankungen, Nutzung ophthalmologischer Leistungen, natürlicher Krankheitsverlauf, Krankheitsüberwachung, Wirksamkeitsvergleiche, Sicherheit und Monitoring unerwünschter Ereignisse, Einhaltung von Best-Practice-Kriterien und klinischen Leitlinien. Das IRIS-Register sowie andere derartige Projekte erlauben wertvolle, unverfälschte und tagesaktuelle Einblicke, die den wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisgewinn und die Verbesserung der Gesundheitsversorgung beschleunigen werden, insbesondere wenn die finanziellen Mittel knapp sind.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Behndig A, Montan P, Stenevi U et al (2011) One million cataract surgeries: Swedish National Cataract Register 1992– 2009. J Cataract Refract Surg 37:1539–1545

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Borden WB, Maddox TM, Tang F et al (2014) Impact of the 2014 expert panel recommendations for management of high blood pressure on contemporary cardiovascular practice: insights from the NCDR PINNACLE registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 64:2196–2203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Claesson M, Armitage WJ (2007) Astigmatism and the impact of relaxing incisions after penetrating keratoplasty. J Refract Surg 23:284–289

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Coster DJ, Lowe MT, Keane MC, Williams KA (2014) A comparison of lamellar and penetrating keratoplasty outcomes: a registry study. Ophthalmology 121:979–987

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Frederick MA, Singh T, Salami S et al (2013) First steps: Exploring use of a prospective, office-based registry as the foundation for quality improvement in cardiology training. J Grad Med Educ 5(4):694–699

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Fröbert O, Lagerqvist B, Olivecrona GK et al (2013) Thrombus aspiration during ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 369:1587–1597

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Holmström G, Hellström A, Jakobsson P et al (2015) Evaluation of new guidelines for ROP screening in Sweden using SWEDROP – a national quality register. Acta Ophthalmol 93:265–268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Holmström G, Hellström A, Jakobsson PG et al (2012) Swedish national register for retinopathy of prematurity (SWEDROP) and the evaluation of screening in Sweden. Arch Ophthalmol 130:1418–1424

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Holz FG, Bandello F, Gillies M et al (2013) Safety of ranibizumab in routine clinical practice; 1‑year retrospective pooled analysis of four European neovascular AMD registries within the LUMINOUS programme. Br J Ophthalmol 97:1161–1167

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Larsson S, Lawyer P, Garellick G et al (2012) Use of 13 Disease Registries in 5 Countries Demonstrates the potential to use outcome data to improve health care’s value. Health Aff 31:220–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lauer MS, D’Agostino RB (2013) The randomized registry trial – the next disruptive technology in clinical research? N Engl J Med 369:1579–1581

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lum F, Schachat AP, Jampel HD (2002) The Development and Demise of a Cataract Surgery Database. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 28:108–114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lum F, Schein O, Schachat AP et al (2000) Initial two years of experience with the AAO National Eyecare Outcomes Network (NEON) cataract surgery database. Ophthalmology 107:691–697

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lundström M, Barry P, Brocato L et al (2014) European registry for quality improvement in cataract surgery. Int J Health Care Qual Assur 27:140–151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lundström M, Barry P, Henry Y et al (2012) Evidence-based guidelines for cataract surgery. Guidelines based on data in the EUREQUO database. J Cataract Refract Surg 38:1086–1093

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lundström M, Goh P‑P, Henry Y, Salowi MA, Barry P, Manning S, Rosen P, Stenevi U (2015) The changing pattern of cataract surgery indications – a five-year study of two cataract surgery databases. Ophthalmology 122:31–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lundström M, Wejde G, Stenevi U et al (2007) Endophthalmitis following cataract surgery. A nation-wide prospective study evaluating incidence in relation to incision type and location. Ophthalmology 114:866–870

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Luo R, Brekke A, Noble PC (2012) The financial impact of joint registries in identifying poorly performing implants. J Arthroplasty 27:66–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mallika PS, Aziz S, Goh PP et al (2012) Diabetic retinopathy in native and non-native Sarawakians – findings from the Diabetic Eye Registry. Med J Malaysia 67:369–374

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Masoudi FA, Ponirakis A, Yeh RW et al (2011) Cardiovascular care facts: a report from the national cardiovascular data registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013(62):1931–1947

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mollazadegan K, Lundstrom M (2015) A study of the correlation between patient-reported outcomes and clinical outcomes after cataract surgery in ophthalmic clinics. Acta Ophthalmol 93:293–298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National ambulatory medical care survey: 2012 state and national summary tables. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ahcd/namcs_summary/2012_namcs_web_tables.pdf. Accessed 25 September 2015

  23. Peterson PN, Chan PS, Spertus JA et al (2013) Practice-level variation in use of recommended medications among outpatients with heart failure: Insights from the NCDR PINNACLE program. Circ Heart Fail 6:1132–1138

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Phillips R (2015) ABFM to simplify maintenance of certification (MOC) for family physicians and make it more meaningful: a family medicine registry. J Am Board Fam Med 28:433–435

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rao V, Hess CN, Barham B et al (2014) A registry-based randomized trial comparing radial and femoral approaches in women undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: The SAFE-PCI for women (Study of Access Site for Enhancement of PCI for Women) Trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 7:857–867

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rosenfeld PJ, Brown DM, Heier JS et al (2006) Ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med 355:1419–1431

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Souzeau E, Goldberg I, Healey PR et al (2012) Australian and New Zealand registry of advanced glaucoma: methodology and recruitment. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol 40:569–575

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. The CATT Research Group (2011) Ranibizumab and Bevacizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration. N Engl J Med 364:1897–1908

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. American Academy of Ophthalmology, 655 Beach Street, 94120-7424, San Francisco, CA, USA

    D. W. Parke II MD, F. Lum & W. L. Rich

Authors
  1. D. W. Parke II MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F. Lum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. W. L. Rich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. W. Parke II MD.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

D. W. Parke II, F. Lum, and W. L. Rich state that there are no conflicts of interest.

The accompanying manuscript does not include studies on humans or animals performed by any of the authors.

The supplement this article is part of is not sponsored by the industry.

Additional information

The German version of this article is available under doi: 10.1007/s00347-016-0300-2

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Parke II, D.W., Lum, F. & Rich, W.L. The IRIS® Registry. Ophthalmologe 114 (Suppl 1), 1–6 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-016-0265-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-016-0265-1

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation