ArticleDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2018
[Evaluation of the infrastructure for clinical surgical studies in Germany : A nationwide survey of the surgical study network CHIR-Net].
Article in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Pediatric Surgical Research Output in Germany in the Last 30 Years - An Assessment and International Comparison of Three Dedicated Paediatric Surgical Journals.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn order to improve the quality and quantity of clinical trials in Germany a surgical study network called CHIR-Net funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) was established. The focus was on building an infrastructure for the performance of surgical multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trials with the inclusion of university and non-university hospitals. The education of clinicians with an interest in clinical research and the transfer of research ideas (as investigator initiated trials, IIT) were clear goals for this grant. The aim of this article is to evaluate the incentive measures by comparison of clinics with and without participation in CHIR-Net structures. MATERIAL AND
methodsA nationwide online survey included a total of 475 heads of surgical departments of whom 268 worked in hospitals with participation in CHIR-Net structures and 207 at hospitals without. They were asked to answer 20 questions in the following categories: education and activities in clinical trials, number of publications and participation in grant applications at the BMBF and/or German Research Foundation (DFG). The evaluation of the survey was performed according to a priori defined criteria.
resultsThe response rate was 23.4% and 68 CHIR-Net hospitals and 43 non-CHIR-Net hospitals participated in the survey. The comparison of the results between the hospitals showed that the network significantly contributed to improvement of the study culture, especially in the areas of education in clinical research, infrastructure for clinical trials, study activity, grant applications and publication rates.
conclusionThe hospitals that participate in CHIR-Net structures were superior to hospitals that do not participate in CHIR-Net structures regarding study activity, infrastructure for clinical trials, study-specific education of clinicians, grant applications and publication rates. The goal of the grant was achieved and the funding led to manifold, long-term cooperation and a clear improvement of the study culture in surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29947919What 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.