ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2021
[Urological care in practices and clinics during the corona virus pandemic in Germany].
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.
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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Microglial dynamics and ferroptosis induction in human iPSC-derived neuron-astrocyte-microglia tri-cultures.FEBS open bio · 2026Article
- Medical care services provision and stress experience in urologists during all waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The coronavirus pandemic has had an immediate and far-reaching effect on the care of urological patients. The pandemic monitor of the German Society for Urology was able to record the restrictions on patient care in urological practices and clinics by means of regular surveys of the members. A total of 689 responses at four survey time points were included. In April there was a reduction in urological inpatients to 44% and the number of patients in practices dropped to 50%. Available operating theater capacities for urological patients were 45% in April, normalized to 90% in June and fell again to 50% in December. Elective operations could not be performed at all or only to a very limited extent in most hospitals in April and December. While urgent operations could be treated to 100% in more than 75% of the clinics in April, in December more than half of the clinics stated that they could not treat all patients with urgent indications. To some extent (8-19%) practices and clinics had to resort to a pandemic-related supraregional referral of patients. The reduction of outpatients in urological practices in April normalized to 95% in June and remained stable during the second wave of the pandemic. The increase in urological emergencies in practices observed at the beginning of the pandemic did not show up in November and December. The coronavirus pandemic has led to a significant reduction in the care of urological patients, which in particular in the second wave also affects urgent operations.
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.