↓ Skip to main content

Quantity, topics, methods and findings of randomised controlled trials published by German university departments of general practice – systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Quantity, topics, methods and findings of randomised controlled trials published by German university departments of general practice – systematic review
Published in
Trials, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13063-016-1328-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefan Heinmüller, Antonius Schneider, Klaus Linde, for the DFG Network Clinical Trials in General Practice

Abstract

Academic infrastructures and networks for clinical research in primary care receive little funding in Germany. We aimed to provide an overview of the quantity, topics, methods and findings of randomised controlled trials published by German university departments of general practice. We searched Scopus (last search done in April 2015), publication lists of institutes and references of included articles. We included randomised trials published between January 2000 and December 2014 with a first or last author affiliated with a German university department of general practice or family medicine. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool, and study findings were quantified using standardised mean differences (SMDs). Thirty-three trials met the inclusion criteria. Seventeen were cluster-randomised trials, with a majority investigating interventions aimed at improving processes compared with usual care. Sample sizes varied between 6 and 606 clusters and 168 and 7807 participants. The most frequent methodological problem was risk of selection bias due to recruitment of individuals after randomisation of clusters. Effects of interventions over usual care were mostly small (SMD <0.3). Sixteen trials randomising individual participants addressed a variety of treatment and educational interventions. Sample sizes varied between 20 and 1620 participants. The methodological quality of the trials was highly variable. Again, effects of experimental interventions over controls were mostly small. Despite limited funding, German university institutes of general practice or family medicine are increasingly performing randomised trials. Cluster-randomised trials on practice improvement are a focus, but problems with allocation concealment are frequent.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 24%
Student > Master 7 21%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Librarian 2 6%
Other 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 11 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 6 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Psychology 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 12 36%