Long-term healthcare use after postoperative complications: an analysis of linked primary and secondary care routine data.

Background: Postoperative complications are associated with reduced long-term survival. We characterise healthcare use changes after sentinel postoperative complications. Methods: We linked primary and secondary care records of patients undergoing elective surgery at four East London hospitals (2012-7) with at least 90 days follow-up. Complication codes (wound infection, urinary tract infection, pneumonia, new stroke, and new myocardial infarction) recorded within 90 days of surgery were identified from primary or secondary care. Outcomes were change in healthcare contact days in the 2 yr before and after surgery, and 2 yr mortality. We report rate ratios (RaR) with 95% confidence intervals and adjusted for baseline healthcare use and confounders using negative binomial regression. Results: We included 49 913 patients (median age 49 yr [inter-quartile range {IQR}: 34-64]), 27 958 (56.0%) were female. Amongst 3883 (7.8%) patients with complications (median age 58 [IQR: 43-72]), there were 18.4 days per year in contact with healthcare before surgery and 25.3 days after surgery (RaR: 1.38 [1.37-1.39]). Patients without complications (median age 48 [IQR: 33-63]) had 12.3 days per year in contact with healthcare before surgery and 14.0 days after surgery (RaR: 1.14 [1.14-1.15]). The adjusted incidence rate ratio of days in contact with healthcare associated with complications was 1.67 (1.49-1.87). More patients (391; 10.1%) with complications died within 2 yr than those without (1428; 3.1%). Conclusions: Patients with postoperative complications are older with greater healthcare use before surgery. However, their absolute and relative increases in healthcare use after surgery are greater than patients without complications.

Long-term disease interactions amongst surgical patients: a population cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The average age of the surgical population continues to increase, as does prevalence of long-term diseases. However, outcomes amongst multi-morbid surgical patients are not well described. METHODS: We included adults undergoing non-obstetric surgical procedures in the English National Health Service between January 2010 and December 2015. Patients could be included multiple times in sequential 90-day procedure spells. Multi-morbidity was defined as presence of two or more long-term diseases identified using a modified Charlson comorbidity index. The primary outcome was 90-day postoperative death. Secondary outcomes included emergency hospital readmission within 90 days. We calculated age- and sex-adjusted odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using logistic regression. We compared the outcomes associated with different disease combinations. RESULTS: We identified 20 193 659 procedure spells among 13 062 715 individuals aged 57 (standard deviation 19) yr. Multi-morbidity was present among 2 577 049 (12.8%) spells with 195 965 deaths (7.6%), compared with 17 616 610 (88.2%) spells without multi-morbidity with 163 529 deaths (0.9%). Multi-morbidity was present in 1 902 859/16 946 808 (11.2%) elective spells, with 57 663 deaths (2.7%, OR 4.9 [95% CI: 4.9-4.9]), and 674 190/3 246 851 (20.7%) non-elective spells, with 138 302 deaths (20.5%, OR 3.0 [95% CI: 3.0-3.1]). Emergency readmission followed 547 399 (22.0%) spells with multi-morbidity compared with 1 255 526 (7.2%) without. Multi-morbid patients accounted for 57 663/114 783 (50.2%) deaths after elective spells, and 138 302/244 711 (56.5%) after non-elective spells. The rate of death varied five-fold from lowest to highest risk disease pairs. CONCLUSION: One in eight patients undergoing surgery have multi-morbidity, accounting for more than half of all postoperative deaths. Disease interactions amongst multi-morbid patients is an important determinant of patient outcome.

Can pioglitazone be used for optimization of nutrition in critical illness? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Skeletal muscle wasting is a determinant of physical disability in survivors of critical illness. Intramuscular bioenergetic failure, altered substrate metabolim, and inflammation are likely underpinning mechanisms. We examined the effect of pioglitazone, a peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ agonist, on muscle-related outcomes in adults. METHODS: We included randomized controlled trials in which pioglitazone was administered (no dose/dosage restrictions) and muscle-related outcomes were reported. We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL, and trial registries. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2. Primary outcomes were physical function and symptoms, muscle mass and function, or body composition and muscular compositional change. Secondary outcomes included muscle insulin sensitivity, mitochondrial effects, and intramuscular inflammation. RESULTS: Fourteen studies over 19 publications (n = 474 patients) were included. Lean body mass was unaffected in three studies (n = 126) and increased by 1.8-1.92 kg in two studies (P = 0.02 and 0.003, respectively; n = 48). Pioglitazone was associated with increased peripheral insulin sensitivity (+23%-72%, standardized mean difference of 0.97 from trial start point to end point [95% CI, 0.36-1.58; n = 213]). Treatment reduced intramuscular tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) levels (-30%; P = 0.02; n = 29), with mixed effects on serum TNF-α and intramyocellular lipid concentrations. Treatment increased intramuscular markers of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) biosynthesis (ATP5A [+33%, P ≤ 0.05], ETFA [+60%, P ≤ 0.05], and CX6B1 [+ 33%, P = 0.01] [n = 24]), PGC1α and PGC1ß messenger RNA expression (P < 0.05; n = 26), and AMPK phosphorylation (+38%, P < 0.05; n = 26). These data have low-quality evidence profiles owing to risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Pioglitazone therapy increases skeletal muscle insulin sensitivity and can decrease intramuscular inflammation.

Change in healthcare utilisation after surgical treatment: observational study of routinely collected patient data from primary and secondary care.

BACKGROUND: Most patients fully recover after surgery. However, high-risk patients may experience an increased burden of medical disease. METHODS: We performed a prospectively planned analysis of linked routine primary and secondary care data describing adult patients undergoing non-obstetric surgery at four hospitals in East London between January 2012 and January 2017. We categorised patients by 90-day mortality risk using logistic regression modelling. We calculated healthcare contact days per patient year during the 2 yr before and after surgery, and express change using rate ratios (RaR) with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: We included 70 021 patients, aged (mean [standard deviation, sd]) 49.8 (19) yr, with 1238 deaths within 2 yr after surgery (1.8%). Most procedures were elective (51 693, 74.0%), and 20 441 patients (29.1%) were in the most deprived national quintile for social deprivation. Elective patients had 12.7 healthcare contact days per patient year before surgery, increasing to 15.5 days in the 2 yr after surgery (RaR, 1.22 [1.21-1.22]), and those at high-risk of 90-day mortality (11% of population accounting for 80% of all deaths) had the largest increase (37.0 days per patient year before vs 60.8 days after surgery; RaR, 1.64 [1.63-1.65]). Emergency patients had greater increases in healthcare burden (13.8 days per patient year before vs 24.8 days after surgery; RaR, 1.8 [1.8-1.8]), particularly in high-risk patients (28% of patients accounting for 80% of all deaths by day 90), with 21.6 days per patient year before vs 49.2 days after surgery; RaR, 2.28 [2.26-2.29]. DISCUSSION: High-risk patients who survive the immediate perioperative period experience large and persistent increases in healthcare utilisation in the years after surgery. The full implications of this require further study.

Surgery in older patients: learning from shared decision-making in intensive care.

An increasing number of older patients are having surgical treatments. Similar to older patients admitted to intensive care, they present with additional problems including multimorbidity, frailty, and cognitive impairment. In both intensive care and surgical settings, comprehensive assessment can inform targeted interventions and shared decision-making. We explore the challenges faced by older patients, and by the clinicians treating them.

Long-term mortality following complications after elective surgery: a secondary analysis of pooled data from two prospective cohort studies.

BACKGROUND: Complications after surgery affect survival and quality of life. We aimed to confirm the relationship between postoperative complications and death within 1 yr after surgery. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of pooled data from two prospective cohort studies of patients undergoing surgery in five high-income countries between 2012 and 2014. Exposure was any complication within 30 days after surgery. Primary outcome was death within 1 yr after surgery, ascertained by direct follow-up or linkage to national registers. We adjusted for clinically important covariates using a mixed-effect multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model. We conducted a planned subgroup analysis by type of complication. Data are presented as mean with standard deviation (sd), n (%), and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: The pooled cohort included 10 132 patients. After excluding 399 (3.9%) patients with missing data or incomplete follow-up, 9733 patients were analysed. The mean age was 59 [sd 16.8] yr, and 5362 (55.1%) were female. Of 9733 patients, 1841 (18.9%) had complications within 30 days after surgery, and 319 (3.3%) died within 1 yr after surgery. Of 1841 patients with complications, 138 (7.5%) died within 1 yr after surgery compared with 181 (2.3%) of 7892 patients without complications (aHR 1.94 [95% CI: 1.53-2.46]). Respiratory failure was associated with the highest risk of death, resulting in six deaths amongst 28 patients (21.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative complications are associated with increased mortality at 1 yr. Further research is needed to identify patients at risk of complications and to reduce mortality.

Liberal or restrictive antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgical site infection: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial prophylaxis is widely used to prevent surgical site infection. Amid growing concern about antimicrobial resistance, we determined the effectiveness of antimicrobial prophylaxis. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and WHO-ICTRP between January 1, 1990 and January 1, 2020 for trials randomising adults undergoing surgery to liberal (more doses) or restrictive (fewer or no doses) perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis. Pairs of researchers reviewed articles and extracted data, and a senior author resolved discrepancies. The primary outcome measure was surgical site infection or bacteriuria for urological procedures. We calculated average risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals and prediction intervals (PI) using random effects models, and present risk ratios (RR). We assessed evidence certainty using GRADE methodology, and risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (PROSPERO: CRD42018116946). RESULTS: From 6593 records, we identified 294 trials including 86 146 patients. Surgical site infection occurred in 2237/44 113 (5.1%) patients receiving liberal prophylaxis vs 2889/42 033 (6.9%) receiving restrictive prophylaxis (RD -0.01 [-0.02 to -0.01]; relative risk 0.72 [0.67-0.77]; I2=52%, PI -0.05-0.02). There was a small benefit of prophylaxis in 161 trials comparing no prophylaxis with ≥1 dose (RD -0.02 [-0.03 to -0.02]; RR 0.58 [0.52-0.65]; I2=62%, PI -0.06-0.02). Treatment effect varied from a strong effect in urology to no benefit in 7/19 specialities. Tests for publication bias suggest 62 unreported trials and evidence certainty was very low. Treatment harms were reported in 43/294 trials. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials revealed that more liberal antimicrobial prophylaxis is associated with a small reduction in the risk of surgical site infection, although antimicrobial harms are poorly reported. Further evidence about the risks of antimicrobial prophylaxis to inform current widespread use is urgently needed.

Routine postoperative noninvasive respiratory support and pneumonia after elective surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pulmonary complications, including pneumonia, are a substantial cause of morbidity. We hypothesised that routine noninvasive respiratory support was associated with a lower incidence of pneumonia after surgery. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing the routine use of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), noninvasive ventilation (NIV), or high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) against standard postoperative care in the adult population. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and CENTRAL from the start of indexing to July 27, 2021. Articles were reviewed and data extracted in duplicate, with discrepancies resolved by a senior investigator. The primary outcome was pneumonia, and the secondary outcome was postoperative pulmonary complications. We calculated risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. RESULTS: From 18 513 records, we included 38 trials consisting of 9782 patients. Pneumonia occurred in 214/4403 (4.9%) patients receiving noninvasive respiratory support compared with 216/3937 (5.5%) receiving standard care (RD -0.01 [95% confidence interval: -0.02 to 0.00]; I2=8%; P=0.23). Postoperative pulmonary complications occurred in 393/1379 (28%) patients receiving noninvasive respiratory support compared with 280/902 (31%) receiving standard care (RD -0.11 [-0.23 to 0.01]; I2=79%; P=0.07). Subgroup analyses did not identify a benefit of CPAP, NIV, or HFNO in preventing pneumonia. Tests for publication bias suggest six unreported trials. CONCLUSION: The results of this evidence synthesis do not support the routine use of postoperative CPAP, NIV, or HFNO to prevent pneumonia after surgery in adults. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42019156741.

Death after surgery among patients with chronic disease: prospective study of routinely collected data in the English NHS.

BACKGROUND: Five million surgeries take place in the NHS each year. Little is known about the prevalence of chronic diseases among these patients, and the association with postoperative outcomes. METHODS: Analysis of routine data from all NHS hospitals in England including patients aged ≥18 yr undergoing non-obstetric surgery between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015. The primary outcome was death within 90 days after surgery. For each chronic disease, we adjusted for age, sex, presence of other diseases, emergency surgery, and year using logistic regression models. We defined high-risk diseases as those with an adjusted odds ratio (OR) for death ≥2 and report associated 2-yr survival. RESULTS: We included 8 624 611 patients (median age, 53 [36-68] yr), of whom 6 913 451 (80.2%) underwent elective surgery and 1 711 160 (19.8%) emergency surgery. Overall, 2 311 600 (26.8%) patients had a chronic disease, of whom 109 686 (4.7%) died within 90 days compared with 24 136 (0.4%) of 6 313 011 without chronic disease. Respiratory disease (1 002 281 [11.6%]), diabetes mellitus (662 706 [7.7%]), and cancer (310 363; 3.6%) were the most common. Four chronic diseases accounted for 7.7% of patients but 59.0% of deaths: cancer (37 693 deaths [12.1%]; OR=8.3 [8.2-8.5]), liver disease (8638 deaths [10.3%]; OR=4.5 [4.4-4.7]), cardiac failure (26 604 deaths [12.6%]; OR=2.4 [2.4-2.5]), and dementia (19 912 deaths [17.9%]; OR=2.0 [1.9-2.0]). Two-year survival was 67.7% among patients with high-risk chronic disease, compared with 97.1% without. CONCLUSION: One in four surgical patients has a chronic disease with an associated 10-fold increase in risk of postoperative death. Two-thirds of all deaths after surgery occur among patients with high-risk diseases (cancer, cardiac failure, liver disease, dementia).

Socioeconomic deprivation and long-term outcomes after elective surgery: analysis of prospective data from two observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic deprivation is associated with health inequalities. We explored relationships between socioeconomic group and outcomes after elective surgery in the UK National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: We combined data from two observational studies in 115 NHS hospitals and determined socioeconomic group using the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) quintiles based on place of residence. Postoperative complications and 3-yr survival were assessed using logistic and Cox regression. Univariate analyses were adjusted for age differences between IMD quintiles. Multivariable analyses were used to account for other baseline risk factors including sex and comorbid disease. Results are reported as n (%), hazard ratios (HR) or odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Postoperative complications developed in 971/9051 patients (10.7%) and 1597/9043 patients (17.7%) died within 3 yr. Complication rates increased with deprivation (reference group least-deprived IMD5): IMD1 (OR=1.44 [1.17-1.78]; P<0.001), IMD2 (OR=1.38 [1.12-1.70]; P<0.01), IMD3 (OR=1.09 [0.88-1.35]: P=0.44), IMD4 (OR=0.89 [0.71-1.11]; P=0.30). More patients from the most deprived quintile died (IMD1) (n=349, 18.8%) compared with the least deprived (IMD5) (n=297, 15.9%) with a trend across the socioeconomic spectrum (P=0.01). After age adjustment, patients in the most deprived areas experienced reduced 3-yr survival: IMD1 (HR=1.43 [1.23-1.67]; P<0.0001), IMD2 (HR=1.35 [1.15-1.57]; P<0.001), IMD3 (HR=1.04 [0.89-1.23]; P=0.60), and IMD4 (HR=1.11 [0.95-1.30]; P=0.19). This finding persisted in risk-adjusted analyses. Increased complication rates only partially explained this reduced survival. CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic deprivation is associated with worse long-term outcomes after elective surgery. This risk factor should be considered when planning perioperative care for patients from deprived areas.

Analysis of the first 2645 registrations at the research registry®: A global repository for all study types involving human participants.

BACKGROUND: The Declaration of Helsinki has called for the registration of all research studies involving human participants. Despite this, prior registries did not allow registration certain study types, or retrospective registration. The Research Registry® (www.researchregistry.com) was established in 2015 to provide a venue of registration for any study involving human participants. METHODS: and analysis: This retrospective database analysis describes the first 3000 registrations received by the Research Registry®. Since the launch of the Registry in 2015, we have collected data on each registration and excluded inappropriate registrations through a weekly curation process. The characteristics of all studies registered is presented. Each registration was marked against a quality score by two researchers acting independently, and we describe how this has changed over time. No ethical approval was required for this data only study including no human participants. RESULTS: Of 3000 registrations, we included 2645 that were submitted to the registry between February 2015 and October 2017. The number of registrations increased year on year, and we now receive between 60 and 80 registrations per month. One fifth of registrations were from China (537 [20.3%]). Retrospective observational studies were most commonly registered (1125 [42.5%]), and studies included in excess of 20 million patients (median 80 [IQR:25-200]). The quality score of registrations improved over the time (Kruskal-Wallis p < 0.05), and the 'control/comparator' component of the quality score was most poorly completed (completed by 1199 [54%]). CONCLUSION: The Research Registry® has received registrations on over 2500 registrations, including in excess of 20 million patients, with the quality of registrations improving over time. Retrospective observational studies and case series are the most commonly registered.

The SCARE 2018 statement: Updating consensus Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: The SCARE Guidelines were published in 2016 to provide a structure for reporting surgical case reports. Since their publication, SCARE guidelines have been widely endorsed by authors, journal editors, and reviewers, and have helped to improve reporting transparency of case reports across a range of surgical specialties. In order to encourage further progress in reporting quality, the SCARE guidelines must themselves be kept up to date. We completed a Delphi consensus exercise to update the SCARE guidelines. METHODS: A Delphi consensus exercise was undertaken. All members of the previous Delphi group were invited to participate, in addition to researchers who have previously studied case reports, and editors from the International Journal of Surgery Case Reports. The expert group was sent an online questionnaire where they were asked to rate their agreement with proposed changes to each of the 24 items. RESULTS: 56 people agreed to participate and 45 (80%) invitees completed the survey which put forward modifications to the original guideline. The collated responses resulted in modifications. There was high agreement amongst the expert group. CONCLUSION: A modified and improved SCARE checklist is presented, after a Delphi consensus exercise was completed. The SCARE 2018 Statement: Updating Consensus Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) Guidelines.

The PROCESS 2018 statement: Updating Consensus Preferred Reporting Of CasE Series in Surgery (PROCESS) guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: The PROCESS guidelines were published in 2016 to provide a structure for reporting surgical case series. The PROCESS guidelines have since been widely endorsed by a number of journals. The requirement to report compliance with each item outlined in the PROCESS statement has improved the reporting transparency of case series across a number of surgical specialties. Here, we undertook a new Delphi consensus exercise to update the PROCESS guidelines. METHODS: All members of the previous Delphi group were invited to participate. In addition, researchers, editors, and reviewers who have previously published or reviewed case series with the International Journal of Surgery were invited to collaborate. An online questionnaire was sent to participants asking them to rate their agreement with amendments to each of the 29 items. RESULTS: 140 experts were invited to participate, 56 people agreed to participate, and 45 (80%) recipients completed the survey. There was a high level of agreement amongst the expert group, and unanimous consensus was reached in the first round. All except three proposed items were accepted, and the original guidelines were modified accordingly. CONCLUSION: A modified and improved PROCESS checklist is presented, after a Delphi consensus exercise was completed.

How to organize a medical elective.

The medical elective is often considered a major highlight of the medical school experience. However, organizing an elective can be a daunting experience. From selecting a destination, to securing bursaries, the road is fraught with uncertainty. In this article, we provide some guidance on how to successfully organize a medical elective. This includes the selection of the destination; options for research or clinical practice and tips for budgeting and acquiring travel bursaries.

Support for reporting guidelines in surgical journals needs improvement: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence-based medicine works best if the evidence is reported well. Past studies have shown reporting quality to be lacking in the field of surgery. Reporting guidelines are an important tool for authors to optimize the reporting of their research. The objective of this study was to analyse the frequency and strength of recommendation for such reporting guidelines within surgical journals. METHODS: A systematic review of the 198 journals within the Journal Citation Report 2014 (surgery category) published by Thomson Reuters was undertaken. The online guide for authors for each journal was screened by two independent groups and results compared. Data regarding the presence and strength of recommendation to use reporting guidelines was extracted. RESULTS: 193 journals were included (as five appeared twice having changed their name). These had a median impact factor of 1.526 (range 0.047-8.327), with a median of 145 articles published per journal (range 29-659), with 34,036 articles published in total over the two-year window 2012-2013. The majority (62%) of surgical journals made no mention of reporting guidelines within their guidelines for authors. Of the 73 (38%) that did mention them, only 14% (10/73) required the use of all relevant reporting guidelines. The most frequently mentioned reporting guideline was CONSORT (46 journals). CONCLUSIONS: The mention of reporting guidelines within the guide for authors of surgical journals needs improvement. Authors, reviewers and editors should work to ensure that research is reported in line with the relevant reporting guidelines. Journals should consider hard-wiring adherence to them.

The use of study registration and protocols in plastic surgery research: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In 2013, the Declaration of Helsinki changed to mandate that all research studies involving human subjects, rather than just clinical trials alone, must have a protocol registered in a publicly accessible database prior to the enrolment of the first patient. The objective of this work was to assess the number of research studies involving human participants published in leading journals of plastic surgery that had either published a protocol or registered a protocol with a publicly accessible database. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This systematic review examined all research articles involving human participants published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, The Journal of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery and The Annals of Plastic Surgery from 1st April 2014-31st March 2015. The primary outcome measure was whether each study had either published or registered a protocol with any mainstream registry database. ClinicalTrials.gov, the International Standard Randomized Control Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry, the WHO (World Health Organisation) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, The Cochrane Collaboration, the Research Registry, PROSPERO and PubMed were all reviewed. RESULTS: Of 595 included articles, the most common study designs were case series (n = 185, 31.1%). There were 24 randomized controlled trials (RCTs, 4.0%). A total of 24 studies had a protocol registered (4.0%). The most common database to register a protocol was with ClinicalTrials.gov (n = 17). The study design that most commonly had a registered protocol was the RCT (n = 8 of 24, 33.3% of RCTs). Three studies published a protocol in a journal (0.6%). CONCLUSION: Publication or registration of protocols for recent studies involving human participants in major plastic surgery journals is low. There is considerable scope to improve this and guidance is provided.

Surveying opinions of 149 registrants to the Research Registry: Awareness of and attitudes towards research registration.

BACKGROUND: Research registration is an important ethical principle in the Declaration of Helsinki, however, progress to increase registration has been slow. Understanding the attitudes of users towards registries may provide insights into increase research registration. In this survey-based study, we sought to gain insight from users of a single global research registry, the Research Registry® (www.researchregistry.com). METHODS: A Google Forms survey was created and emailed to all users of the Research Registry® (n = 1432). Multiple choice and free-text answers were analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis respectively. RESULTS: From 925 contactable registrations, 149 (16.1%) completed the survey. The most commonly registered study type was retrospective cohort (32.2%). 23 registrations (15.4%) were made during the planning or conception of the study, whereas 67 (45.0%) registered at the time of journal submission, or during the peer review process. Of those that declared whether they had performed unregistered research or not, 51 (45.5%) participants had previously performed unregistered research. Registrants were most commonly made aware of the Research Registry® through submission to the International Journal of Surgery (IJS) family of journals (n = 57, 47.5%). Survey participants identified the most important features of registration to be its convenience, including the ease, time and cost of registration. Thematic analysis revealed the most common motive for registration to be as a mandatory requirement of journal submission, and that registration can be improved by simplification of the registration process. CONCLUSION: Registries must focus on engaging their network of users to ensure that research registration is a dynamic process. They need to adopt a user-centered and agile approach to their development, with a strong focus on "customer service". Moreover, by working in partnership with journals, it is possible to improve compliance with registration.