ReviewDer Nervenarzt2020
[Psychiatric textbooks from National Socialism and the censorial practice in the Soviet Occupation Zone and early GDR].
Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- [History of neurology in the GDR: a systematic review].Der Nervenarzt · 2022Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Allied Forces policy of denazification and demilitarization during the early post-war period has had a lasting impact on medical disciplinary cultures in all occupation zones of Germany. By means of various control procedures, the conceptuality and linguistic design, the style and normative horizon of medical literature were reconstituted. This article examines this change using the example of psychiatry and neurology in the Soviet Occupation Zone. It deals with the neurological psychiatric textbook as a central medium of disciplinary communication and reconstructs how the knowledge in this field was processed and prepared in complex negotiation processes between authors, publishers and censors. The focus is on institutionalized filters of limited production of discourses and thus the archival holdings of censorship authorities, which have not yet been evaluated. The evaluation results are presented here with a focus on psychiatry and neurology and illustrated with selected case studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31098650What 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.