ArticleBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2026
[Population medicine research in German public health authorities: a bibliometric analysis].
Article in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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
introductionGerman public health authorities (PHAs) bear a specific responsibility in scientific and population-based medicine, requiring specialist medical doctor and public health expertise in order to assess risks and implement measures. The data-driven verification of interventions is fundamental to their legitimacy and efficient resource allocation. This study aims to provide an overview of the international research output of German PHAs and to delineate their networks.
methodsMethodologically, an empirical-descriptive analysis of bibliometric PubMed data was conducted. Systematic searches identified publications with PHA affiliations, followed by data cleaning and network analyses at the institutional level, differentiated according to the inclusion of state-level institutions.
resultsA total of 458 publications (excluding those with affiliations solely to state-level institutions) with a direct PHA connection were identified. PHA publication rates increased from approximately 2014, peaked during the COVID-19 pandemic and are currently declining. Research activities are heavily concentrated in a few PHAs, notably Frankfurt on the Main, Cologne, Stuttgart, Berlin and Regensburg, which are often well-networked, whilst the majority of the over 380 PHAs publish infrequently. DISCUSSION: The findings confirm research activities within PHAs, albeit highly centralized. For enhanced visibility and the strengthening of research, a standardised affiliation designation ("Gesundheitsamt") and the establishment of teaching and research public health authorities are recommended to systematically integrate practice, teaching and research. Strengthening research capacities and networks is essential. Limitations include the focus on PubMed and the restriction to PHA affiliations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41251775What 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.