ReviewDer Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete2017
[German national consensus on wound documentation of leg ulcer : Part 1: Routine care - standard dataset and minimum dataset].
Review in Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a model to predict closure of chronic wounds in Germany: Claims data analysis.International wound journal · 2022Article
- Expressiveness of an International Semantic Standard for Wound Care: Mapping a Standardized Item Set for Leg Ulcers to the Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine-Clinical Terms.JMIR medical informatics · 2021Article
- [German national consensus on wound documentation of leg ulcer : Part 2: Routine care - classification of variable characteristics].Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStandards for basic documentation and the course of treatment increase quality assurance and efficiency in health care. To date, no standards for the treatment of patients with leg ulcers are available in Germany.
objectivesThe aim of the study was to develop standards under routine conditions in the documentation of patients with leg ulcers. This article shows the recommended variables of a "standard dataset" and a "minimum dataset". MATERIALS AND
methodsConsensus building among experts from 38 scientific societies, professional associations, insurance and supply networks (n = 68 experts) took place. After conducting a systematic international literature research, available standards were reviewed and supplemented with our own considerations of the expert group. From 2012-2015 standards for documentation were defined in multistage online visits and personal meetings.
resultsA consensus was achieved for 18 variables for the minimum dataset and 48 variables for the standard dataset in a total of seven meetings and nine online Delphi visits. The datasets involve patient baseline data, data on the general health status, wound characteristics, diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, patient reported outcomes, nutrition, and education status. DISCUSSION: Based on a multistage continuous decision-making process, a standard in the measurement of events in routine care in patients with a leg ulcer was developed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28681135What 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.