Conclusions: Individually, the PIR and the TR reflect a valid source for documenting injured patients, although the
data reflect the emphasis of the particular registry. Linking the two registries enabled new insights into care of
multiple-trauma patients with pelvic fractures even when linkage rates were poor. Future considerations and
development of the registries should be done in close bilateral consultation with the aim of benefiting from
complementary data and improving data concordance. It is also conceivable to integrate individual modules,
e.g. a pelvic fracture module, into the TR likewise a modular system in the future.