ArticleChirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany)2025
[Specialty-specific knowledge as prerequisite for effective treatment of critically ill patients].
Article in Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany), 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since the last meeting of the German Medical Association in May 2024, there has been a discussion in Germany about the shortening of primary specialty training and a transfer of the contents of additional supra-specialty training to the existing primary specialty training. This also affects intensive care medicine, with the prospect of creating a subspecialty for subspecialties in intensive care medicine (e.g., a specialty in surgical intensive care medicine). We consider the associated reduction of general specialty-specific contents to be inappropriate for several reasons. Knowledge of the specialty-specific trigger factors (foci) of a critical illness (organ dysfunction) as well as knowledge of the respective trigger factor-specific symptoms, diagnostics and pathways for initiating a causal treatment, are decisive for the prognosis. Recent evidence suggests that in the case of septic foci a time span between making the diagnosis and treatment of the focus should not exceed ca. 6h in order to avoid a worsening of the prognosis. To ensure that the time between symptom onset and effective treatment of the causal factors is not too long, an in-depth expertise in the primary specialty is required throughout the process. This expertise is independent of training in intensive care medicine and can only be acquired through adequate training in the specialty, followed by additional training in intensive care medicine. Expertise in the primary specialty is a prerequisite for the effective treatment of critically ill patients. Maintaining the training specific to the primary specialty and the associated acquisition of specific knowledge in the respective specialty also enables a wider deployment of specialists in clinical practice and a more economical use of diagnostic and therapeutic resources. The additional training in intensive care medicine (supraspecialty) should not be at the expense of content specific to the primary specialty and must remain accessible to all surgical specialties in the field of surgery in the next revision of the training regulations. Due to the unavoidable extent, the additional training in intensive care medicine can itself only be provided on a full-time basis.
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.