Observational studyDer Urologe. Ausg. A2020
[Urological research in Germany : A retrospective, longitudinal observational study].
Observational study in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThe congress of the German Society of Urology reflects urologic research in German-speaking countries. The objective was to identify trends by analyzing the congress' abstracts and following full publications longitudinally. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe abstracts of the 2016 congress were systematically analyzed regarding content, study design, cooperation, following full publications and journals which they were published in. Thereafter, the 2016 congress was compared to the 2002 and 2009 congresses. Statistical analysis included χ
resultsA total of 1073 abstracts were presented at the 2002, 2009, and 2016 congresses. We found an increase in abstracts regarding prostate disease (24.2%, 29.7%, and 34.0%; p = 0.0043), oncological abstracts (50.6%, 57.9%, and 61.7%; p = 0.003), multicenter studies (18.3, 28.6, and 34.3%; p < 0.0001) and cooperation (55.6%, 62.9%, and 70.5%, p < 0.0001). Experimental (29.0%, 33.2%, and 22.8%; p = 0.009) and prospective studies (62.1%, 42.0%, and 36.0%; p < 0.0001) declined. Abstracts including statistical analysis (18.4%, 14.7%, and 41.2%; p < 0.0001) and the impact factor of following full publications (2.08, 3.42, 4.42; p < 0.0001) rose. In 2016, 11.2% of those full publications were published Open Access. The publication rates of the presented abstracts were 49.1%, 56.3%, and 52.3%, respectively (p = 0.15).
conclusionsNational and international networking of the urological research community has increased. Presentation of prospective studies has declined. The rate of peer-reviewed full publications following the DGU abstracts remains at a stable high level over the three congresses. The publication rate in Open Access journals is low.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32347325What 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.