ReviewDer Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete2017
[German national consensus on wound documentation of leg ulcer : Part 2: Routine care - classification of variable characteristics].
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chronic Wounds and Employment: Assessing Occupation-Related Burden of Patients With Chronic Wounds-Results of a Pilot Study.International wound journal · 2025Article
- 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
- [Modern wound treatment-from best practice to innovation].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2018Article
- [German national consensus on wound documentation of leg ulcer : Part 1: Routine care - standard dataset and minimum dataset].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
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStandards in the assessment and documentation of disease processes are the basis of guideline-based care. For the treatment of chronic wounds, especially leg ulcers, no approved parameters are available.
objectivesAgainst this background, our aim was to develop standards for the documentation of leg ulcer in routine care. This article presents the recommendations for the classification and characteristics of the variables. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe development of the documentation standard was based on a systematic literature research and was performed in a Delphi-based consensus process. The national consensus process included meetings as well as web-based questionnaires. The Consensus Group is coordinated by the German Center for Health Services Research in Dermatology (CVderm).
resultsThe documentation standards and their variables for leg ulcer routine care were developed in seven meetings of the consensus group. The consensus group consists of 38 delegates of wound care societies, health insurances, wound networks and associations. DISCUSSION: For each variable, recommended in routine care, a distinct response scheme (defined set of variable characteristics) was defined. As a next step, a structured implementation process is required, which was part of the resolutions of the consensus group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.