ArticleBMJ open2024
German primary care data collection projects: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perspectives on Health Data Sharing Among Patients With Somatic and Mental Health Diseases: Focus Group Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Real-world evidence from Germany: representativeness analysis and mortality endpoint validation in electronic health record-derived oncology cohorts.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Bicentric evaluation of employee satisfaction, patient safety and treatment quality: comparing different Health Information System (HIS) solutions.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Feasibility of data extraction and evaluation with BeoNet-Halle: outcomes and data quality in hepatitis B and C screenings.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe widespread use of electronic health records (EHRs) has led to a growing number of large routine primary care data collection projects globally, making these records a valuable resource for health services and epidemiological and clinical research. This scoping review aims to comprehensively assess and compare strengths and limitations of all German primary care data collection projects and relevant research publications that extract data directly from practice management systems (PMS).
methodsA literature search was conducted in the electronic databases in May 2021 and in June 2022. The search string included terms related to general practice, routine data, and Germany. The retrieved studies were classified as applied studies and methodological studies, and categorised by type of research, subject area, sample of publications, disease category, or main medication analysed.
resultsA total of 962 references were identified, with 241 studies included from six German projects in which databases are populated by EHRs from PMS. The projects exhibited significant heterogeneity in terms of size, data collection methods, and variables collected. The majority of the applied studies (n = 205, 85%) originated from one database with a primary focus on pharmacoepidemiological topics (n = 127, 52%) including prescription patterns (n = 68, 28%) and studies about treatment outcomes, compliance, and treatment effectiveness (n = 34, 14%). Epidemiological studies (n = 77, 32%) mainly focused on incidence and prevalence studies (n = 41, 17%) and risk and comorbidity analysis studies (n = 31, 12%). Only 10% (n = 23) of studies were in the field of health services research, such as hospitalisation.
conclusionThe development and durability of primary care data collection projects in Germany is hindered by insufficient public funding, technical issues of data extraction, and strict data protection regulations. There is a need for further research and collaboration to improve the usability of EHRs for health services and research.
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.