ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Evaluation of clinical guideline implementations for cardiovascular diseases by German general practitioners-Results of a web-based survey.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Clinical guidelines are intended to improve the quality of medical care. The aim of this survey was to record the concrete implementation of guidelines in practice and criteria for their implementation in Germany. Materials and methods: Using a web-based questionnaire developed with medical scientific societies and uzbonn, general practitioners were able to participate anonymously in the survey between July 1, 2024, and October 31, 2024. Data were statistically evaluated using descriptive methods. Results: Four hundred thirty-seven physicians participated in the survey. 74.1% frequently implement guideline recommendations, 13.3% always, 11.2% rarely, and 1.4% never. 67.3% consider the guidelines to be too extensive. 71.6% regularly inform themselves about guideline updates. Motivators include a high recommendation rate (86.4%), recommending scientific society (78.7%), and discussion in medical training events (85.6%). The highest attention is given to National Care Guidelines (Nationale VersorgungsLeitlinie, NVL) 71.2% and guidelines of national scientific societies (65.4%). Barriers include the extent (67.3%), lack of practical relevance (51.5%), time required (47.2%), differing recommendations between various guidelines (46%), and uncertainty about validity (45.9%). Supportive measures would be a summary of essential content (98%), pocket guidelines from scientific societies (84.2%), discussions in quality circles (76.4%), and brief information in German medical journals (73.2%). Conclusion: Clinical guideline recommendations are highly accepted in everyday practice, especially the German NVL. The extent, lack of practical relevance, time required, discrepancies in recommendations, and differences in validity are significant barriers. Summaries of essential recommendations, pocket guidelines, and regular publications in medical journals could help increase application of clinical guidelines in practice.
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.