ArticleDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2006
[Aim, content, evaluation and perspectives of surgical training in randomized trials at the Study Centre of the German Surgical Society].
Article in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Design and evaluation of the University of Munich courses on research trials].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2009Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical research, especially the management of randomized controlled multicentre trials, is a challenge for surgical investigators. To provide the theoretical background and practical knowledge needed for surgical trials, it is necessary to revise standard training programmes, which focus on pharmacological research. The main differences concern regulatory aspects and content, especially in achieving and maintaining comparability, equal treatment, and outcome assessment using special randomisation techniques and standardised surgical procedures.
methodsIn November 2005, in cooperation with the Coordinating Centre for Clinical Trials in Heidelberg, the Study Centre of the German Surgical Society Study Group (SDGC) hosted a clinical investigation course for surgeons. During 3 days, 24 participants were systematically instructed by 16 lecturers on clinical trials (planning, treatment by protocol, data management, biometrics, ethics, and law), followed by participants' evaluation of the course.
resultsOn a scale of 1 to 6 (excellent to insufficient, respectively) the mean grades for the course were 1.6 for content, 1.55 for clarity, and 1.55 for learning effect. Partial repetition, lack of work in small groups, and not enough materials to take home were the major criticisms.
conclusionsThe evaluation emphasised the necessity and value of the course. Further courses with continued evaluation are necessary and can be based on the same underlying concept. However, the mere qualification of surgeons as clinical investigators without substantial additional improvements in structural problems and increased financial project support will not fundamentally improve clinical research in Germany.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16773343What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.