ArticleHerz2025
[Quality assurance in cardiology with routine data : Requirement and reality].
Article in Herz, 2025. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Routine data are very helpful as an instrument for health services research. In German hospitals the input data of the statutory quality assurance (in cardiology: left heart catheterization, cardiac implantable electronic devices and transcatheter aortic valve implantation, TAVI), the data according to § 21 of the Hospital Remuneration Act and mandatory quality assurance reports of hospitals are available. In addition, the health insurance companies also have social data at their disposal. The very restrictive interpretation of data safety in Germany as well as a partition of the data according to the private or statutory health insurance status, outpatient and inpatient forms of treatment and two different remuneration sources exacerbate in the current reality an effective central use of routine data, as is possible in other countries, e.g., Sweden. Routine data are a powerful tool for quality assurance in terms of critical self-reflection and as a basis for peer review by colleagues; however, public reporting of routine data (publication of the results of individual hospitals) is questionable due to methodological limitations, such as data quality and risk adjustment, as it puts hospitals in the pillory without any chance to critically reflect on the validity of the data. Consequently, risk-avoiding behavior in medical services could compromise patient care. The current development of healthcare policies with a structural reform of the hospital landscape and the recommendations of the government committee will increase the demands on the quality assessment based on routine data. Simplified data acquisition, methodological improvements as well as new aspects, such as the quality of indications, assessment of nursing services and patient orientation will be added. In future, a quality-oriented remuneration based on routine data is intended to help control the healthcare system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40080175What 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.