ArticleGesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany))2023
[Are the assessments of individual out-of-pocket health services of the IGeL-Monitor in line with clinical guidelines?]
Article in Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe IGeL-Monitor of the Federal Medical Advisory Service in Germany evaluates the benefits and harms of individual out-of-pocket health services (in German: Individuelle Gesundheitsleistungen / IGeL). The aim of the analysis was to systematically compare IGeL-assessements with the recommendations from evidence-based guidelines.
methodTo identify guidelines, we conducted searches in guidelines databases (AWMF, Guidelines International Network and Trip database) and the websites of guideline organisations (February/March 2022). We included guidelines that were not older than 5 years. The methodological quality of the guidelines was assessed using the AGREE II instrument. We compared the recommendations with the IGeL-assessments in terms of content and grade of recommendation.
resultsWe identified 41 guidelines covering 24 IGeL-assessements. 19 (79%) assessments (nearly) were in agreement with the guideline recommendations. No comparison was possible for 5 IGeL-assessements, because, for example, the recommendations were more specific. Ten of the 13 IGeL that were rated (tendentially) negatively were also not recommended in the guidelines.
conclusionOverall, the IGeL-assessments were consistent with the recommendations of current guidelines. Accordingly, guideline groups seem to assess the evidence similarly to the IGeL-Monitor team. Insured persons should be informed honestly about the evidence, particularly for the (tendentially) negatively evaluated IGeL that are not recommended even in guidelines.
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.