Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36149435›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society2023

Research in orthopaedic trauma surgery: approaches of basic scientists and clinicians and the relevance of interprofessional research teams.

Frank Hildebrand, Christine Höfer, Klemens Horst, Benedikt Friemert, Dietmar Pennig, Ingo Marzi, Richard Stange, Scientific Committee of the German Society for Trauma Surgery

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society, 2023. 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. Clinical and healthcare research.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025
    Review
  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

8 authors.

Frank HildebrandDepartment of Orthopedics, Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstrasse 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany. fhildebrand@ukaachen.de.
Christine HöferAUC-Academy for Trauma Surgery, Munich, Germany.
Klemens HorstDepartment of Orthopedics, Trauma and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstrasse 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Benedikt FriemertDepartment of Orthopedics, Trauma, Septic and Reconstructive Surgery, Sports Traumatology, German Army Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Dietmar PennigGerman Society for Trauma Surgery, Berlin, Germany.
Ingo MarziDepartment of Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, Hospital of the Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
Richard StangeDepartment of Regenerative Musculoskeletal Medicine, Institute for Musculoskeletal Medicine, University Hospital Münster, Munich, Germany.
Scientific Committee of the German Society for Trauma Surgery

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn increasing clinical workload and growing financial, administrative and legal burdens as well as changing demands regarding work-life balance have resulted in an increased emphasis on clinical practice at the expense of research activities by orthopaedic trauma surgeons. This has led to an overall decrease in the number of scientifically active clinicians in orthopaedic trauma surgery, which represents a serious burden on research in this field. In order to guarantee that the clinical relevance of this discipline is also mirrored in the scientific field, new concepts are needed to keep clinicians involved in research.

methodsLiterature review and discussion of the results of a survey. RESULTS/

conclusionAn interdisciplinary and -professional team approach involving clinicians and basic scientists with different fields of expertise appears to be a promising method. Although differences regarding motivation, research focuses, funding rates and sources as well as inhibitory factors for research activities between basic scientists and clinicians exist, successful and long-lasting collaborations have already proven fruitful. For further implementation of the team approach, diverse prerequisites are necessary. Among those measures, institutions (e.g. societies, universities etc.) must shift the focus of their support mechanisms from independent scientist models to research team performances.

Indexed as

Orthopedic ProceduresOrthopedicsHumansBasic scientistInterdisciplinarityInterprofessional cooperationResearch teamsScientifically active clinician

Identifiers

PMID36149435
PMCPMC9925566

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.