ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2021
[Does structural and process quality of certified prostate cancer centers result in better medical care?]
Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Short-Term Urinary Incontinence After Radical Prostatectomy Is Still Based on Patients' Age, Nerve-Sparing Approach, and Surgical-Experience, Despite the Higher-Use of Robotic Surgery in 2022 Compared to 2016 Real-World Results of a Large Rehabilitation Center in Germany.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2024Article
- Quality-assured treatment in certified cancer center networks in upper Franconia, Germany: a population-centered retrospective cohort analysis based on data of the Bavarian cancer registry.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Treatment of Colorectal Cancer in Certified Centers: Results of a Large German Registry Study Focusing on Long-Term Survival.Cancers · 2023Article
- Is treatment in certified cancer centers related to better survival in patients with pancreatic cancer? Evidence from a large German cohort study.BMC cancer · 2022Observational
- [Continence and pelvic floor centers-Meaningful certification requirements?]Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAn improved structural and process quality could be demonstrated 13 years after certification of the first German prostate cancer center. The question of optimization of the functional quality by establishing organ cancer centers arises.
objectiveA critical benefit-risk analysis of organ cancer centers was carried out to evaluate an improved quality of results. MATERIAL AND
methodsBased on published results from individual centers and the individual annual reports of the German Cancer Society (DKG), the data for evaluating the quality of results were checked. For the issuing of certificates, the focus is on quality indicators for oncological surgery. The functional quality of results is assessed exclusively by a questionnaire-based survey.
resultsAn improvement in the quality of functional results after radical prostatectomy has not yet been demonstrated. The functional quality features of urinary continence and erectile function that are essential for the quality of life and patient satisfaction are only insufficiently assessed due to the lack of objective measuring instruments and are not relevant for certification. There is no reliable evidence for improved overall survival, reduction in tumor-specific mortality, and optimization of functional results in certified centers.
conclusionThe relationship between certification and excellence cannot be proven without individual consideration of a surgeon-specific pentafecta analysis. For this reason, certification-relevant surgeon-related quality assurance is recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32876699What 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.