Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40471263›Full record

ReviewBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2025

[More efficient use of resources in research laboratories through quality management].

Sophia Sohns, Janine Kleymann-Hilmes

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. [Quality management in research-the perspective of research teams].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026
    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

2 authors.

Sophia SohnsForschungskoordination, Robert Koch-Institut, Berlin, Deutschland. BruenschwitzS@rki.de.
Janine Kleymann-HilmesForschungskoordination, Robert Koch-Institut, Berlin, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

At first glance, research and quality management (QM) could hardly be more different. Research is characterized by freedom, creativity, and flexibility. QM often appears rigid, strict, and bureaucratic. Nevertheless, research laboratories can benefit significantly from the principles of QM, especially when it comes to increasing the quality and efficiency of research and thus making the best possible use of resources that are constantly limited.High research quality depends on various factors. These different influencing factors were examined in detail and implemented in a specific research quality management system (QMS) in pilot laboratories of the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) and at a university institution. The research QMS is based on the requirements of good scientific practice. It was shown that many laboratories have already established processes that can be further optimized and made more efficient by a QMS.A self-assessment tool for laboratory managers was developed to assess the maturity level of laboratory processes. This report provides an overview of the quality in research and shows ways in which this can be improved at the level of the working groups, tailored to their individual framework conditions. For this purpose, a QMS is proposed and a tool for the self-assessment of one's own processes is presented. The report is based on a comprehensive literature review and a cross-departmental and cross-institutional project of the RKI.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchEfficiency, OrganizationalLaboratoriesQuality Assurance, Health CareTotal Quality ManagementGermanyGood scientific practiceLaboratoriesQuality assuranceScienceSustainability

Identifiers

PMID40471263
PMCPMC12583365

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.