ArticleDer Nervenarzt2016
[German neurology and neurologists during the Third Reich: exemplified by research on epilepsy].
Article in Der Nervenarzt, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Ego documents of people with epilepsy during National Socialism].Der Nervenarzt · 2026Article
- [Heinrich Pette (1887-1964) and the difficult assessment of his role from the Weimar Republic to the Federal Republic of Germany].Der Nervenarzt · 2020Review
- [Neurological and psychiatric journals during the Third Reich : National socialistic and racist contents].Der Nervenarzt · 2017Article
- [German neurology and neurologists during the Third Reich: Epilogue].Der Nervenarzt · 2016Article
- [German neurology and neurologists during the Third Reich : Topical introduction].Der Nervenarzt · 2016Article
- [German neurology and neurologists during the Third Reich: Preconditions and general framework before and after 1933].Der Nervenarzt · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are only a small number of studies dealing with the impact of eugenic theories and practices on the research of particular neurological diseases during the Third Reich. Thus, this contribution to the special issue on neurology in Germany between 1933 and 1945 focuses exemplarily on epilepsy research. By drawing on primary sources and secondary literature the article tries to reconstruct the scientific discourse of the time and consider the implications for patients. National socialistic ideology was based on eugenic thinking and the implementation of eugenic policies was a major political objective. An immediate effect of this policy was the passing of the Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring (Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses) in 1933. According to this law "hereditary epilepsy" along with various other neurological and psychiatric disorders was regarded as a mandatory indication for forced sterilization. Subsequently, funding of epileptological research was generously increased and extended, e. g. at the German Research Institute (Deutsche Forschungsanstalt) in Munich and the Rheinische Provinzial-Institut in Bonn. The main focus was placed on idiopathic forms of the disease, which were a priori considered as hereditary. At the annual meetings of the Society of German Neurologists and Psychiatrists (Gesellschaft deutscher Neurologen und Psychiater), lectures and debates on epilepsy repeatedly constituted a key topic. Some participants opted for a broad interpretation of "endogeneity" and thus favored an extension of the practice of sterilization but others advocated a more differentiated and restricted attitude. Several neurology researchers showed a penchant for self-mobilization in line with the doctrine of the new government.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27325159What 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.