| Title |
The pancreatic surgery registry (StuDoQ|Pancreas) of the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery (DGAV) – presentation and systematic quality evaluation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trials, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13063-017-1911-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ulrich F. Wellner, Carsten Klinger, Kai Lehmann, Heinz Buhr, Edmund Neugebauer, Tobias Keck |
| Abstract |
Pancreatic resections are among the most complex procedures in visceral surgery. While mortality has decreased substantially over the past decades, morbidity remains high. The volume-outcome correlation in pancreatic surgery is among the strongest in the field of surgery. The German Society for General and Visceral Surgery (DGAV) established a national registry for quality control, risk assessment and outcomes research in pancreatic surgery in Germany (DGAV SuDoQ|Pancreas). Here, we present the aims and scope of the DGAV StuDoQ|Pancreas Registry. A systematic assessment of registry quality is performed based on the recommendations of the German network for outcomes research (DNVF). The registry quality was assessed by consensus criteria of the DNVF in regard to the domains Systematics and Appropriateness, Standardization, Validity of the sampling procedure, Validity of data collection, Validity of statistical analysis and reports, and General demands for registry quality. In summary, DGAV StuDoQ|Pancreas meets most of the criteria of a high-quality clinical registry. The DGAV StuDoQ|Pancreas provides a valuable platform for quality assessment, outcomes research as well as randomized registry trials in pancreatic surgery. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 43 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 9% |
| Researcher | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Unknown | 14 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 5% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 2% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 14 | 33% |