Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24402570›Full record

ReviewDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2014

[Assessment of the benefit of medical devices in surgical practice. Problems and possible solutions].

D Seidel, P Braß, N Sehnke, V Jakob, W Eglmeier, E A M Neugebauer, CHIR-Net Studiengruppe

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. [Complications in surgery: Topic of the year 2015 in Der Chirurg].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 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

7 authors.

D SeidelInstitut für Forschung in der Operativen Medizin (IFOM), Fakultät für Gesundheit, Universität Witten/Herdecke, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109, Köln, Deutschland.
P Braß
N Sehnke
V Jakob
W Eglmeier
E A M Neugebauer
CHIR-Net Studiengruppe

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The market approval of medical devices in Germany does not yet require a benefit assessment. Thus, there is a lack of high quality studies that clearly prove the benefit of medical innovations. In the past, the Federal Joint Committee in Germany (G-BA) did not have the opportunity to adequately address this issue of lacking evidence. A law for the improvement of the care structure in the statutory health insurance offers the possibility for the G-BA to obtain evidence for the benefit of medical practice. With an integrated regulation for testing of medical devices the manufacturers have the option to apply for an assessment of new and established treatment methods and to provide scientific evidence for the benefit of medical devices as a requirement for inclusion in the catalogue of services of the statutory health insurance. However, this expanded scope of action is also a challenge for clinicians. The already existing problem of integrating multicenter clinical trials in the surgical routine will remain. The Surgical Study Network Germany (CHIR-Net) offers an ideal way to cope with the increased requirements on studies in the field of medical devices through established partnerships with methodological institutions and practitioners in clinical settings.

Indexed as

Surgical InstrumentsClinical Trials as TopicDevice ApprovalEvidence-Based MedicineGermanyHumansNational Health ProgramsQuality Assurance, Health CareSurgical EquipmentTechnology Assessment, Biomedical

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.