ArticleDie Ophthalmologie2022
[Current situation of electronic medical records in ophthalmological departments in Germany].
Article in Die Ophthalmologie, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [EyeMatics-Multicenter data evaluation of real-world data with interoperable medical informatics].Die Ophthalmologie · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElectronic medical records are required in ophthalmology clinics to be integrated into digital care networks and efficient clinical registry databases. AIM OF THE WORK: To assess the prevalence and methods of electronic medical recordkeeping in inpatient ophthalmological care in Germany. MATERIAL AND
methodsAn online questionnaire was sent to all German university eye hospitals and ophthalmology departments in June 2021. It included 13 open and closed option questions concerning current practices of digital recordkeeping, including the structure of data storage and the recording of billing-relevant codes in the departments.
resultsA total of 44 (44%) out of 100 clinics responded. Patient documentation was completely digital in 15 (34%) clinics and partly digital and paper-based in the remaining 29 (66%). A total of 16 different constellations of documentation programs were specified. The most frequently used programs were Orbis (27%) (Dedalus HealthCare, Bonn, Germany), FIDUS (18%) (Arztservice Wente, Darmstadt, Germany), and SAP/i.s.h.med (16%) (SAP Deutschland, Walldorf, Germany; Cerner Deutschland, Berlin, Germany) and 3 clinics indicated primary use of paper records. Structured documentation of findings was performed in 61% of the departments, while 23% used a semistructured manner and 15% used a nonstructured format. Electronic documents are stored as DICOM (Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine) documents 20% of the clinics and as PDF (Portable Document Format) files in 34% of the clinics while 23% store scanned printouts. DISCUSSION: Methods of medical record keeping in German eye clinics are heterogeneous, with paper-based documentation continuing to play an important role. This, as well as the high number of different electronic medical record software pose important challenges in terms of interoperability and secondary use of clinical data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35376987What 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.