ArticleUnfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany)2022
[Patient consent for the TraumaRegistry DGU based on the GDPR-A challenge for the hospitals: status quo and solution strategies].
Article in Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic impact of body temperature trajectories from emergency department arrival to intensive care unit admission - insights from the TraumaRegister DGUScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA): in action or on the shelf? A comprehensive analysis of current practices in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland - insights from the Traumaregister DGUBMC emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Trauma patients with SARS-CoV-2 in German ICUs during the 2nd wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
According to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR 05/2018), anonymized data sets with a sufficiently high data density are classified as traceable and require a declaration of consent if they are evaluated centrally for research or quality control purposes. Quality assurance and further increases in the quality of care are, however, only possible with a nearly complete survey of seriously injured persons in the sense of health services research. The more than 600 German clinics that take part in the TraumaRegistry DGU® try to obtain the declarations of consent from this special patient population. The study clinic evaluated the rate of consent and the reasons for rejection or failure to obtain consent over a 12-month period. While using a resource-intensive workflow especially for patient education and obtaining the consent, a patient consent rate of 64.5% and an error rate of 35.5% were recorded. Of the 276 potential TraumaRegistry DGU® data records 98 could not be entered and were therefore neither available for quality control nor for multiple trauma research. In order to guarantee the quality control and the further improvement of the quality of care, an approximate total recording of the patient population is necessary; however, this cannot be achieved by requiring a declaration of consent. We therefore advocate creating the possibility of collecting the TraumaRegistry data set without consent, as this ultimately represents a standard data set, comparable to the Hospital Remuneration Act (§21-KHEntgG) data set but pseudonymised.
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.