Assessing the FAIRness of Metabolic Bariatric Surgery Registries: a Comparative Analysis of Data Dictionaries from the UK, Germany, France, Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden
- PMID: 39904832
- PMCID: PMC11906509
- DOI: 10.1007/s11695-025-07701-2
Assessing the FAIRness of Metabolic Bariatric Surgery Registries: a Comparative Analysis of Data Dictionaries from the UK, Germany, France, Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden
Abstract
Background: This study is part of an initiative to improve the FAIRness (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, Reusability) of metabolic bariatric surgery (MBS) registries globally. It explores the extent to which European registry data can be manually integrated without first making them FAIR and assesses these registries' current level of FAIRness. The findings establish a baseline for evaluation and provide recommendations to enhance MBS data management practices.
Methods: Data dictionaries from five national MBS registries in Germany, France, the Netherlands, the UK, and a combined registry for Scandinavia (Norway and Sweden) were evaluated regarding their ability to manually integrate registry datasets with one another. The FAIR Data Maturity Model from the Research Data Alliance (RDA) FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group was used to assess the FAIRness of both metadata and data of the registries.
Results: The registries showed significant variability in variables and coding structures, with inconsistent numerical formats and without linkage to international standards such as SNOMED CT, LOINC, or NCIt, making data integration labor-intensive and assumption-heavy. Despite the presence of data dictionaries, all registries failed the FAIR assessment because machine-readable data was unavailable, and only human-readable metadata was available in the form of data dictionaries in a spreadsheet.
Conclusion: Our study reveals significant inconsistencies in data structuring and a failure to comply with the FAIR Principles, which limit effective data analysis and comparison. This emphasizes the critical need for standardized data management practices. We recommend four next steps to improve the FAIRness of MBS registries: (1) annotate data elements using standardized terminology systems, (2) deposit registry-level metadata in a repository, (3) request globally unique and persistent identifiers for datasets, and (4) define access restrictions.
Keywords: Data modeling; FAIR; Metabolic bariatric surgery; Registry.
© 2025. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Ethical Approval: This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. Informed Consent: Informed consent does not apply. Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Making Metadata Machine-Readable as the First Step to Providing Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable Population Health Data: Framework Development and Implementation Study.Online J Public Health Inform. 2024 Aug 1;16:e56237. doi: 10.2196/56237. Online J Public Health Inform. 2024. PMID: 39088253 Free PMC article.
-
Perioperative Outcomes of Primary Bariatric Surgery in North-Western Europe: a Pooled Multinational Registry Analysis.Obes Surg. 2018 Dec;28(12):3916-3922. doi: 10.1007/s11695-018-3408-4. Obes Surg. 2018. PMID: 30027332 Free PMC article.
-
Toward a Domain-Overarching Metadata Schema for Making Health Research Studies FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable): Development of the NFDI4Health Metadata Schema.JMIR Med Inform. 2025 May 21;13:e63906. doi: 10.2196/63906. JMIR Med Inform. 2025. PMID: 40397930 Free PMC article.
-
The importance of national registries/databases in metabolic surgery: the UK experience.Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2016 Jul;12(6):1178-85. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2016.02.030. Epub 2016 Mar 3. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2016. PMID: 27313193 Review.
-
Differences Between the 2016 and 2022 Editions of the Enhanced Recovery After Bariatric Surgery (ERABS) Guidelines: Call to Action of FAIR Data and the Creation of a Global Consortium of Bariatric Care and Research.Obes Surg. 2022 Aug;32(8):2753-2763. doi: 10.1007/s11695-022-06132-7. Epub 2022 Jun 2. Obes Surg. 2022. PMID: 35654929 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- WHO. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight. Accessed 23 Sept 2024.
-
- Moody A. Health survey for England 2019: overweight and obesity in adults and children. https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/hea.... Accessed 23 Sept 2024.
-
- Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Overweight and obesity. 2022. https://www.aihw.gov.au/repor ts/australias-health/overweight-and-obesity Accessed 24 Jan 2023. 2022.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical