ReviewChirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany)2026
[Quality indicators for advanced surgical training : An analysis of current concepts and implementation options from the Young Surgeons' Forum of the German Society of Surgery].
Review in Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [The German Surgery Congress from the perspective of young surgeons; expectations and barriers : Results of a nationwide online survey].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Mind the Gap: A Nationwide Analysis of Case Distribution, Resident Exposure and Institutional Variation in German Pediatric Surgery Training.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdvanced surgical training is essential for maintaining the quality of care; however, Germany still lacks validated quality indicators despite the legal requirements for quality-linked funding under §17b of the Hospital Funding Act.
objectiveThe aim of this work is to develop practical and measurable quality indicators that enable an objective assessment of the structural, procedural and outcome quality of advanced surgical training. MATERIAL AND
methodsTo develop these indicators, legal frameworks were analyzed, a systematic literature search on quality assessment surgical training was conducted and international training models were analyzed as a comparison. Key quality domains were then identified and consolidated into a structured indicator set through expert consensus.
resultsA three-stage set of indicators is proposed: 1) Structural indicators cover aspects such as curriculum quality, supervisor-trainee ratio, network-based training and teaching qualifications. 2) Process indicators include structured training discussions, operational supervision including surgical and procedural keys (OPS) coding for training interventions and continuing education activities. 3) Outcome indicators relating to the duration of training, the success rate of the specialist medical examination and standardized satisfaction. Digital tools, such as e‑logbooks and training registers enable valid and comparable data to be collated for the first time.
conclusionStandardized quality indicators achieve transparency, enable benchmarking and foster a learning data-driven advanced training culture. Annual digital reporting and centralized anonymized assessments are essential for quality assurance and to support future quality-linked funding models.
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.