ArticleDer Urologe. Ausg. A2015
[Requirements for organ-specific oncology centers].
Article in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Does structural and process quality of certified prostate cancer centers result in better medical care?]Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe interdisciplinary, interprofessional, and transsectoral cooperation of partners in a network is prerequisite for the certification of a prostate cancer center. The network reflects all phases and aspects of the disease from the patient's point of view. On the basis of quality indicators that are audited annually, the qualified partners of the network ensure quality of care. Quality indicators reflect the quality of the cooperation in the network, the treatment according to the evidence-based guideline, and the specific expertise of the partners.
methodsThe results of the quality indicators are evaluated annually and summarized in individual and general reports. The system of the quality indicators is an important tool for quality management and to improve daily oncological care. In the future, this system will be extended to include patient-reported outcomes in combination with the OncoBox.
conclusionsThe ongoing quantitative and qualitative improvement makes the certification system a relevant instrument for health policy institutions and is useful in political discussions regarding quality assurance and improvement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26471793What 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.