Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42667395›Full record

ReviewOrthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany)2026

[Day-1 sickness certification : Evidence, economics, and implications for outpatient orthopaedic practice].

Martin Husen

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Orthopadie (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

1 author.

Martin HusenKlinik für Orthopädie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Schlierbacher Landstraße 200a, 69118, Heidelberg, Deutschland. martin.husen@med.uni-heidelberg.de.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2852-9542

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn July 2026, Germany's coalition committee announced plans to abolish telephone-based sickness certification and make medical certification from the first day of illness the statutory default. The policy is intended to address high sickness absence and potential misuse, while additional medical consultations are likely; no detailed bill had been published by 21 July 2026.

objectiveTo review evidence on self-certification, physician certification, and sickness absence monitoring and to assess the expected consequences for office-based orthopaedic practice. MATERIALS AND

methodsFocused narrative review of PubMed and the Cochrane Library, supplemented by German legal, health services, and sickness absence data and international policy examples available through 21 July 2026.

resultsEvidence on universal day‑1 certification is of low to very low certainty, while evidence for a certification-induced prolongation of short episodes is conflicting and highly uncertain. Short episodes account for a large proportion of cases but a substantially smaller proportion of days lost than long-term absence. Additional consultations may consume specialist capacity and could prolong some otherwise brief absences; their magnitude has not been quantified for German orthopaedic practices.

conclusionsA graduated policy combining short self-certification periods, targeted monitoring of selected absence patterns, work-related functional assessment, rehabilitation, and return-to-work pathways appears most consistent with the available evidence and the requirements of outpatient orthopaedic care.

Indexed as

AbsenteeismGermanyMusculoskeletal diseasesReturn to workSick leave

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.