ArticleBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2026
[Quality management in research-the perspective of research teams].
Article in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionResearchers are divided on quality management systems (QMS) in research laboratories-there are supporters and critics. Supporters use various quality management (QM) theories and emphasize advantages such as resource-saving added value. Critics, on the other hand, doubt their usefulness and feasibility. The aim of this study is to provide an objective assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of a QMS in research laboratories based on employee experiences.
methodsThe Robert Koch Institute and its cooperation partners introduced a QMS in pilot research laboratories or used existing systems. Employees were surveyed between 2023 and 2025 before and after the QMS implementation using specially developed questionnaires.
resultsThe advantages of a QMS include improved documentation and reproducibility, optimized processes, increased quality awareness, and better collaboration. These are offset by disadvantages such as increased time and effort, the risk of overregulation, potential restrictions on creative freedom, difficult behavioral changes, limited influence on team culture, and the risk of "organizational blindness." Changes in employee knowledge, actions, and attitudes were already evident in the short term. The majority support QM measures after testing them and recommend them. DISCUSSION: Research laboratories require flexible QMS that respond to individual needs. Measures should be developed jointly within the team and implemented specifically where they increase efficiency. The commitment of all those involved and a balanced relationship between effort and benefit are crucial, as excessive regulation has a hindering effect.
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.