Background This study provides a summary of the 2010 European Renal Association–European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA–EDTA) Registry Annual Report (available at www.era-edta-reg.org). Methods This report includes data on renal replacement therapy (RRT) using data from the national and regional renal registries in 29 countries in Europe and bordering the Mediterranean Sea. Individual patient data were received from 27 registries, whereas 18 registries contributed data in aggregated form. We present incidence and prevalence of RRT, transplant rates, survival probabilities and expected remaining lifetimes. The latter two are solely based on individual patient records. Results In 2010, the overall incidence rate of RRT for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) among all registries reporting to the ERA–EDTA Registry was 123 per million population (pmp) (n = 91 798). The highest incidence rate was reported by Turkey (252pmp) and the lowest reported by Montenegro (21 pmp). The overall prevalence of RRT for ESRD at 31 December 2010 among all registries reporting to the ERA–EDTA Registry was 741 pmp (n = 551 005). The prevalence varied from 124 pmp in Ukraine to 1580 pmp in Portugal. The overall number of renal transplantations performed in 2010 among all registries was 29.2 pmp (n = 21 740). The highest overall transplant rate was reported from Spain, Cantabria (73 pmp), whereas the highest transplant rate for living donor kidneys was reported from the Netherlands (28 pmp). For patients who started RRT between 2001 and 2005, the unadjusted 5-year patient survival on RRT was 46.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 46.0–46.3], and on dialysis 38.6% (95% CI 38.5–38.8). The unadjusted 5-year patient survival after the first renal transplantation performed between 2001 and 2005 was 86.6% (95% CI 86.1–87.1) for deceased donor kidneys and 94.1% (95% CI 93.4–94.8) for living donor kidneys.

This paper introduces the conceptual foundations and motivation for creating a digital archive to display developments in the field of robotics over the past 50 years. The archive is meant to represent robotics as an evolving “ecology of knowledge” (Akera, 2007b) and contains interviews with robotics researchers accompanied by other related documents, such as videos, photos, and online resources, and by visualizations of bibliometric analyses of co-authorship ties, citation networks, common keywords and concepts, etc. Rather than representing a unified and unilinear view of “the history” of robotics, the archive is designed to allow users to explore and navigate the available materials guided by their own interests, thereby constructing multiple narratives about robotics. We describe the project as involving multiple “memory practices” (Bowker, 2005): robotics “pioneers” narrating their lived experiences in the field, publications that inscribe the results and practices of scientific research, social scientists collecting and presenting these materials to further understand scientific practice, and users from the public navigating the archive to develop their own understandings of robotics over the years. In conclusion, we discuss the implications of new information technologies such as digital archives for memory practices in science studies and the sciences.