ArticleMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2020
[Empirical health services research in emergency and acute medicine : Preliminary results of concomitant monitoring of patient recruitment and sample quality].
Article in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Primary and secondary data in emergency medicine health services research - a comparative analysis in a regional research network on multimorbid patients.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Observational
- Article
- Self-referred walk-in patients in the emergency department - who and why? Consultation determinants in a multicenter study of respiratory patients in Berlin, Germany.BMC health services research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUp until now, research data on the implementation of empirical health services research in emergency departments in Germany are scarce. STUDY
aimA monitoring instrument applied in a multicenter prospective cohort study in emergency departments (EDs) is described and discussed regarding requirements for the control and supervision of data collection. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients with cardiac diseases, respiratory tract infections, and hip fractures were recruited in eight EDs located in a central district of Berlin. Enrolment figures and nonresponder reasons were analyzed through descriptive statistics. Potential sample bias was examined in terms of response rates as well as the distribution of age and sex in the group of participants and nonresponders. Qualitative content analysis was applied to data from routine supervisory and feedback meetings with study nurses.
resultsWithin the first 8 months of data collection, 61.1% of the aimed 1104 patients were recruited. Most frequently stated nonresponder reasons were the dense work and care processes in EDs (41.9%) and patients' disease burden (24.7%). Moreover, qualitative results revealed problems with identifying potentially eligible participants and difficulties because of missing research infrastructure in study centers. The response rate of 50.7% and approximately equal distribution of age and sex in participants and nonresponders do not indicate sample biases. DISCUSSION: The monitoring instrument has proven to be suited for empirical research in EDs and revealed optimization potential. We recommend using qualitative and quantitative data systematically.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30603954What 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.