ReviewArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2012
Multidisciplinary breast centres in Germany: a review and update of quality assurance through benchmarking and certification.
Review in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The requirements of a specialist breast centre.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2020Guideline
- Reporting standards for guideline-based performance measures.Implementation science : IS · 2016Pooled it
- Patient preferences for treatment pathways in early-stage breast cancer: application of a discrete choice experiment.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Therapy of early breast cancer: current status and perspectives.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Review
- A survey by the European Society of Breast Imaging on radiologists' preferences regarding quality assurance measures of image interpretation in screening and diagnostic mammography.European radiology · 2023Article
- Importance of interdisciplinarity in modern oncology: results of a national intergroup survey of the Young Oncologists United (YOU).Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Quality indicators for the diagnosis and surgical management of breast cancer in South Africa.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2020Review
- Are data from general practices suitable for survival analyses in the field of breast cancer? A retrospective study conducted in the United Kingdom, France and Germany.Molecular and clinical oncology · 2019Article
- Avoidable Cancer Mortality in Germany Since Reunification: Regional Variation and Sex Differences.Frontiers in public health · 2019Article
- Compliance with clinical guidelines for breast cancer management: A population-based study of quality-of-care indicators in France.PloS one · 2019Article
- [Gerontopsychosomatic consultation/liaison service in inpatient acute geriatrics : Effects of trust and support on patient-nurse interaction].Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2018Review
- Global cancer control: responding to the growing burden, rising costs and inequalities in access.ESMO open · 2018Article
- [Care differences in a consultation and liaison service].Der Nervenarzt · 2017Article
- Benchmarking specialty hospitals, a scoping review on theory and practice.BMC health services research · 2017Article
- Case Numbers and Process Quality in Breast Surgery in Germany: A Retrospective Analysis of Over 150,000 Patients From 2013 to 2014.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2015Article
- Benchmarking facilities providing care: An international overview of initiatives.SAGE open medicine · 2015Review
- Using relative survival measures for cross-sectional and longitudinal benchmarks of countries, states, and districts: the BenchRelSurv- and BenchRelSurvPlot-macros.BMC public health · 2013Article
- Benchmarking and audit of breast units improves quality of care.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis review summarizes the rationale for the creation of breast centres and discusses the studies conducted in Germany to obtain proof of principle for a voluntary, external benchmarking programme and proof of concept for third-party dual certification of breast centres and their mandatory quality management systems to the German Cancer Society (DKG) and German Society of Senology (DGS) Requirements of Breast Centres and ISO 9001 or similar. In addition, we report the most recent data on benchmarking and certification of breast centres in Germany.
methodsReview and summary of pertinent publications. Literature searches to identify additional relevant studies. Updates from the DKG/DGS programmes. RESULTS AND
conclusionsImprovements in surrogate parameters as represented by structural and process quality indicators suggest that outcome quality is improving. The voluntary benchmarking programme has gained wide acceptance among DKG/DGS-certified breast centres. This is evidenced by early results from one of the largest studies in multidisciplinary cancer services research, initiated by the DKG and DGS to implement certified breast centres. The goal of establishing a nationwide network of certified breast centres in Germany can be considered largely achieved. Nonetheless the network still needs to be improved, and there is potential for optimization along the chain of care from mammography screening, interventional diagnosis and treatment through to follow-up. Specialization, guideline-concordant procedures as well as certification and recertification of breast centres remain essential to achieve further improvements in quality of breast cancer care and to stabilize and enhance the nationwide provision of high-quality breast cancer care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.