Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33439289›Full record

ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2021

[Quality criteria in urology : How to obtain comparable results?]

C Würnschimmel, D Tilki, H Huland, M Graefen, B Beyer

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

C WürnschimmelMartini-Klinik Prostatakrebszentrum, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Deutschland.
D TilkiMartini-Klinik Prostatakrebszentrum, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Deutschland.
H HulandMartini-Klinik Prostatakrebszentrum, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Deutschland.
M GraefenMartini-Klinik Prostatakrebszentrum, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Deutschland.
B BeyerMartini-Klinik Prostatakrebszentrum, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Deutschland. b.beyer@uke.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The standardization of procedural flow and medical documentation increasingly allows further possibilities. The best-known example of process standardization is the centralized treatment of complex clinical pictures, while patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) enable standardized documentation. Using the example of prostate cancer, existing literature on the topic of quality optimization in medicine is discussed. The following key points are addressed: (1) Increasing use of standardized PROMs for outcome documentation. (2) The transfer of complex clinical pictures to dedicated specialized centers has been shown to increase the quality of patient care as long as standardized PROMs are used. (3) Healthcare policymakers benefit from the use of PROMs and increasingly pursue a "value-based healthcare" approach.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsUrologyHumansMalePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresCentralizationHealth policyProstate neoplasmsRadical prostatectomyRehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID33439289

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.