Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24384726›Full record

ArticleMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2014

[Rationalization and rationing at the bedside. A normative and empirical status quo analysis].

D Strech

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. [Indication: scientific and ethical basis of medical practice].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2014
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

D StrechInstitut für Geschichte, Ethik und Philosophie der Medizin, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (MHH), Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Deutschland, strech.daniel@mh-hannover.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe topic of bedside rationing is increasingly discussed in Germany. Further need for clarification exists for the question how bedside rationing (e.g., in the area of overcare) can be justified despite coexistent inefficiencies. DISCUSSION: This paper outlines and analyses the relationship of waste avoidance and rationing from an ethical perspective. Empirical findings regarding the status quo of bedside rationing and rationalization are presented. These normative and empirical explorations will then be further specified regarding opportunities for future physician-driven activities to tackle overuse.

conclusionThe self-government partners in Germany should communicate more explicitly within their communities and to the public how and with which benchmarks they aim to reduce inefficient health care (overuse) in an appropriate manner. Physician-driven activities such as the "Choosing Wisely®" initiative in the USA could provide a first step to raise the awareness for overuse among physicians as well as in the public.

Indexed as

EmpiricismRationalizationAttitude of Health PersonnelBenchmarkingCooperative BehaviorGermanyHealth Care RationingHealth Services MisuseHumansInterdisciplinary CommunicationNational Health ProgramsUnnecessary Procedures

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.