Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42228088›Full record

ArticleDermatologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2026

[IGeL in dermatopathology-structural limitations and legal risks].

Cornelia Sigrid Lissi Müller, Torsten Hansen, Claus Renzelmann

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Dermatologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Cornelia Sigrid Lissi MüllerMVZ für Histologie, Zytologie und molekulare Diagnostik Trier GmbH, Max-Planck-Str. 5, 54296, Trier, Deutschland. cornelia.mueller@patho-trier.de.
Torsten HansenMVZ für Histologie, Zytologie und molekulare Diagnostik Trier GmbH, Max-Planck-Str. 5, 54296, Trier, Deutschland.
Claus RenzelmannKanzlei für das Recht der Pathologie, Wuppertal, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Individual health services (IGeL) require direct physician-patient interaction, including personal information, informed consent, and transparent cost clarification. These structural prerequisites are typically not met in dermatopathology, where indication and patient counselling are performed by the referring physician, while diagnostic responsibility and billing consequences rest with the dermatopathologist. This constellation results in unclear responsibilities and relevant legal and organizational risks. This article analyzes the structural limitations of the IGeL framework in dermatopathology and discusses typical conflict scenarios from both a legal and diagnostic perspective. Key aspects include billing risks, liability issues, challenges related to stepwise diagnostics, and the distinction between IGeL services, self-pay services, and regular private insurance billing. In addition, defensive medical practices and communication deficits are addressed as factors that may affect diagnostic quality and legal certainty. Dermatopathology is used as an exemplary field, as the underlying mechanisms and conflicts are transferable to other clinically active specialties, particularly clinical dermatology. The aim of this article is to highlight structural problem areas and to stimulate a fact-based professional discussion on responsibility, billing pathways, and medical necessity.

Indexed as

DermatologyLiability, LegalSkin DiseasesGermanyHumansInformed ConsentPhysician-Patient RelationsDiagnostic managementDiagnostic responsibilityInterface medicineProcess responsibilityQuality assurance

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.