Cargando…

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

BACKGROUND: 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. MET...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Heinmüller, Stefan, Schneider, Antonius, Linde, Klaus
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4842270/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27107809
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1328-y
_version_ 1782428492324929536
author Heinmüller, Stefan
Schneider, Antonius
Linde, Klaus
author_facet Heinmüller, Stefan
Schneider, Antonius
Linde, Klaus
author_sort Heinmüller, Stefan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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). RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1328-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4842270
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48422702016-04-25 Quantity, topics, methods and findings of randomised controlled trials published by German university departments of general practice – systematic review Heinmüller, Stefan Schneider, Antonius Linde, Klaus Trials Research BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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). RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1328-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-04-23 /pmc/articles/PMC4842270/ /pubmed/27107809 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1328-y Text en © Heinmüller et al. 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Heinmüller, Stefan
Schneider, Antonius
Linde, Klaus
Quantity, topics, methods and findings of randomised controlled trials published by German university departments of general practice – systematic review
title Quantity, topics, methods and findings of randomised controlled trials published by German university departments of general practice – systematic review
title_full Quantity, topics, methods and findings of randomised controlled trials published by German university departments of general practice – systematic review
title_fullStr Quantity, topics, methods and findings of randomised controlled trials published by German university departments of general practice – systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Quantity, topics, methods and findings of randomised controlled trials published by German university departments of general practice – systematic review
title_short Quantity, topics, methods and findings of randomised controlled trials published by German university departments of general practice – systematic review
title_sort quantity, topics, methods and findings of randomised controlled trials published by german university departments of general practice – systematic review
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4842270/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27107809
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1328-y
work_keys_str_mv AT heinmullerstefan quantitytopicsmethodsandfindingsofrandomisedcontrolledtrialspublishedbygermanuniversitydepartmentsofgeneralpracticesystematicreview
AT schneiderantonius quantitytopicsmethodsandfindingsofrandomisedcontrolledtrialspublishedbygermanuniversitydepartmentsofgeneralpracticesystematicreview
AT lindeklaus quantitytopicsmethodsandfindingsofrandomisedcontrolledtrialspublishedbygermanuniversitydepartmentsofgeneralpracticesystematicreview
AT quantitytopicsmethodsandfindingsofrandomisedcontrolledtrialspublishedbygermanuniversitydepartmentsofgeneralpracticesystematicreview