ArticleBMC anesthesiology2026
Evaluation and perspectives of the OrphanAnesthesia project - a survey among anesthesiologists in Germany.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with rare diseases face unique risks during anesthesia due to the multisystemic nature of their conditions and the limited availability of evidence-based guidance. In most cases, perioperative guidelines tailored to either the underlying disease or anesthetic management are lacking, leaving anesthetists with considerable uncertainty in clinical decision-making. The OrphanAnesthesia project, initiated in 2005 by the Scientific Working Group on Pediatric Anesthesia of the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, addresses this gap by providing structured, peer-reviewed anesthesia recommendations for rare diseases. This study aims to assess current status, clinical relevance, and future perspectives of the OrphanAnesthesia platform among anesthetists in Germany.
methodsA cross-sectional online survey was conducted among members of the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine and the German Association of Anesthetists from February to March 2025. The anonymous questionnaire included 17 items covering awareness, accessibility, frequency of use, evaluation of content, and future needs related to the OrphanAnesthesia platform. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data.
resultsOut of 2,098 responses, 1,921 fully completed surveys were included in the final analysis (response rate: 8.1%). A total of 81% of respondents were familiar with OrphanAnesthesia; of these, over half accessed the platform five or more times annually. The recommendations were rated as useful by 93% of users, and 75% considered them to be up to date. 22% of all respondents were already familiar with the emergency cards introduced in 2022, and 83% of those rated them as ‘good’ or ‘very good’. 90% of respondents supported the development of a dedicated anesthesia problem card for patients with rare diseases. 72% indicated that a mobile app would increase their use of the platform, and 91% believed it could improve patient safety.
conclusionThe OrphanAnesthesia project is well known among German anesthetists and is considered a valuable resource in the perioperative care of patients with rare diseases. To further enhance its impact, targeted improvements should include greater awareness of existing tools (e.g., emergency cards), the development of individualized anesthesia problem cards, and mobile solutions. These efforts may support evidence-based, safer and more individualized anesthesia care in patients with rare diseases.
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.