Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34546394›Full record

ArticleDer Anaesthesist2022

[COVID-19 pandemic: preferences and barriers for dissemination of evidence syntheses : Survey of intensive care personnel in Germany].

Christian Seeber, Maria Popp, Joerg J Meerpohl, Falk Fichtner, Anne Werner, Christoph Schmaderer, Christopher Holzmann-Littig, Steffen Dickel, Clemens Grimm, Onnen Moerer and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Der Anaesthesist, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

12 authors.

Christian SeeberKlinik und Poliklinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivtherapie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig AöR, Liebigstraße 20, 04103, Leipzig, Deutschland. christian.seeber@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.
Maria PoppKlinik und Poliklinik für Anästhesiologie, Intensivmedizin, Notfallmedizin und Schmerztherapie, Universitätsklinikum Würzburg, Würzburg, Deutschland.
Joerg J MeerpohlInstitut für Evidenz in der Medizin, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg & Medizinische Fakultät, Universität Freiburg, Freiburg, Deutschland.
Falk FichtnerKlinik und Poliklinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivtherapie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig AöR, Liebigstraße 20, 04103, Leipzig, Deutschland.
Anne WernerAbteilung für Medizinische Psychologie und Medizinische Soziologie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig AöR, Leipzig, Deutschland.
Christoph SchmadererFakultät für Medizin, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Abteilung für Nephrologie, Technische Universität München, München, Deutschland.
Christopher Holzmann-LittigFakultät für Medizin, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Abteilung für Nephrologie, Technische Universität München, München, Deutschland.
Steffen DickelKlinik für Anästhesiologie, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Göttingen, Deutschland.
Clemens GrimmKlinik für Anästhesiologie, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Göttingen, Deutschland.
Onnen MoererKlinik für Anästhesiologie, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Göttingen, Deutschland.
Peter KrankeKlinik und Poliklinik für Anästhesiologie, Intensivmedizin, Notfallmedizin und Schmerztherapie, Universitätsklinikum Würzburg, Würzburg, Deutschland.
AP6 CEOsys

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the context of COVID-19, the German CEOsys project (COVID-19 Evidenz Ökosystem, www.covid-evidenz.de ) identifies, evaluates and summarizes the results of scientific studies to obtain evidence on this disease. The evidence syntheses are used to derive specific recommendations for clinical practice and to contribute to national guidelines. Besides the necessity of conducting good quality evidence syntheses during a pandemic, just as important is that the dissemination of evidence needs to be quick and efficient, especially in a health crisis. The CEOsys project has set itself this challenge.

objectivePreparing the most suitable distribution of evidence syntheses as part of the CEOsys project tasks.

methodsIntensive care unit (ICU) personnel in Germany were surveyed via categorical and free text questions. The survey focused on the following topics: evidence syntheses, channels and strategies of distribution, possibility of feedback, structure and barriers of dissemination and trustworthiness of various organizations. Profession, qualification, setting and size of the facility were recorded. Questionnaires were pretested throughout the queried professions (physician, nurse, others). The survey was anonymously carried out online through SosciSurvey® and an e‑mail was sent directly to 940 addresses. The survey was launched on 3 December, a reminder was sent after 14 days and it ended on 31 December. The survey was also announced via e‑mail through DIVI.

resultsOf 317 respondents 200 completed the questionnaire. All information was analyzed including the responses from incomplete questionnaires. The most stated barriers were lack of time and access. Especially residents and nurses without specialization in intensive care mentioned uncertainty or insufficient experience in dealing with evidence syntheses as a barrier. Active distribution of evidence syntheses was clearly preferred. More than half of the participants chose websites of public institutions, medical journals, professional societies and e‑mail newsletters for drawing attention to new evidence syntheses. Short versions, algorithms and webinars were the most preferred strategies for dissemination. Trust in organizations supplying information on the COVID-19 pandemic was given to professional societies and the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) as the German governmental institute for infections and public health. The respondents' prioritized topics are long-term consequences of the disease, protection of medical personnel against infection and possibilities of ventilation treatment.

conclusionEven though universally valid, evidence syntheses should be actively brought to the target audience, especially during a health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic with its exceptional challenges including lack of time and uncertainties in patient care. The contents should be clear, short (short versions, algorithms) and with free access. E‑mail newsletters, websites or medical journals should continuously report on new evidence syntheses. Professional societies and the governmental institute for infections and public health should be involved in dissemination due to their obvious trustworthiness.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsCritical CareGermanyHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesCOVID-19Evidence based medicineImplementationPandemic

Identifiers

PMID34546394
PMCPMC8454015

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.