ArticleDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2020
[Status and perspectives of registry-based studies in German ophthalmology].
Article in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2020. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- [The Hamburg register for intravitreal injection therapies (QIVOM)].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2022Article
- Childhood glaucoma registry in Germany: initial database, clinical care and research (pilot study).BMC research notes · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveRegistry studies provide insights into real-life diagnostic and treatment data outside of clinical trials. Registry studies are interesting for quality management and explorative analyses can lead to the identification of possible risk or prognostically relevant factors and generate hypotheses. There are currently relatively few active registry studies in German ophthalmology. The aim of this survey was to collate the different infrastructure and in particular the potential hurdles in the establishment and performance of registry studies in German ophthalmology departments.
methodsAn online questionnaire collected data on participation in registry studies in German ophthalmology departments between September and December 2018. The survey was addressed to all hospital management and medical staff involved in registry studies in German ophthalmology.
resultsOut of 45 participants 18 were head of the department, the remaining 27 were consultants (15), medical specialists (2) and residents (10). According to the department head an average of 2.5 (2.0-3.5) employees per clinic participate in 2.0 (1.7-3.0) registry studies. The amount of reimbursement recommended by the hospital management differed significantly from the amount suggested by the staff (0.0 (0; 75) € (0-100) vs. 100.0 (50.0; 150.0) €; p = 0.0012). The most frequent hurdles to conducting a registry study were bureaucracy and limited human resources. Half of the surveyed centers profited from a separate study center and good clinical practice (GCP) courses for employees involved in studies were mandatory. A quarter of these centers received support from an IT department and/or a statistician.
conclusionRegistry studies are an important instrument in ophthalmology research and their importance is increasing in Germany. An agreement on national standards would make the establishment of further registry studies easier.
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.