American Medical Directors Association Journal of the American Medical Directors Association New York, NY : Elsevier, 2001 24(2023), 5, Seite 609-618 Online-Ressource
von Julia Hoffmann ; Sabine Hanß ; Monika Kraus ; Jens Schaller ; Christian Schäfer ; Dana Stahl ; Stefan Anker ; Gabriele Anton ; Thomas Bahls ; Stefan Blankenberg ; Arne Blumentritt ; Leif-Hendrik Boldt ; Steffen Cordes ; Steffen Desch ; Wolfram Doehner ; Marcus Dörr ; Frank Edelmann ; Ingo Eitel ; Matthias Endres ; Stefan Engelhardt ; Jeanette Erdmann ; Katharina Eulenburg ; Volkmar Falk ; Stephan B. Felix ; Derk Frank ; Thomas Franke ; Norbert Frey ; Tim Friede ; Lars Geidel ; Lisa Germans ; Ulrich Grabmaier ; Martin Halle ; Jörg Hausleiter ; Vera Jakobi ; Ahmad-Fawad Jebran ; Alexander Jobs ; Stefan Kääb ; Mahir Karakas ; Hugo Katus ; Alexandra Klatt ; Christoph Knosalla ; Joachim Krebser ; Ulf Landmesser ; Mahsa Lee ; Kristin Lehnert ; Stephanie Lesser ; Katrin Leyh ; Roberto Lorbeer ; Stephanie Mach-Kolb ; Benjamin Meder ; Eike Nagel ; Christian H. Nolte ; Abdul S. Parwani ; Astrid Petersmann ; Miriam Puls ; Henriette Rau ; Maximilian Reiser ; Otto Rienhoff ; Tabea Scharfe ; Mario Schattschneider ; Heiko Scheel ; Renate Schnabel ; Andreas Schuster ; Boris Schmitt ; Tim Seidler ; Moritz Seiffert ; Barbara-Elisabeth Stähli ; Adriane Stas ; Thomas J. Stocker ; Lukas von Stülpnagel ; Holger Thiele ; Rolf Wachter ; Reza Wakili ; Tanja Weis ; Kerstin Weitmann ; Heinz Erich Wichmann ; Philipp Wild ; Tanja Zeller ; Wolfgang Hoffmann ; Elisabeth Maria Zeisberg ; Wolfram-Hubertus Zimmermann ; Dagmar Krefting ; Titus Kühne ; Annette Peters ; Gerd Hasenfuß ; Steffen Massberg ; Thomas Sommer ; Stefanie Dimmeler ; Thomas Eschenhagen ; Matthias Nauck
Online veröffentlicht: 8. März 2023 ; Gesehen am 17.09.2024
Artificial Intelligence; Cardiovascular disease; Data and biomaterial collection; German Centre for Cardiovascular Research; Medical Ethics; Research platform; Standardisation
The German Centre for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK) is one of the German Centres for Health Research and aims to conduct early and guideline-relevant studies to develop new therapies and diagnostics that impact the lives of people with cardiovascular disease. Therefore, DZHK members designed a collaboratively organised and integrated research platform connecting all sites and partners. The overarching objectives of the research platform are the standardisation of prospective data and biological sample collections among all studies and the development of a sustainable centrally standardised storage in compliance with general legal regulations and the FAIR principles. The main elements of the DZHK infrastructure are web-based and central units for data management, LIMS, IDMS, and transfer office, embedded in a framework consisting of the DZHK Use and Access Policy, and the Ethics and Data Protection Concept. This framework is characterised by a modular design allowing a high standardisation across all studies. For studies that require even tighter criteria additional quality levels are defined. In addition, the Public Open Data strategy is an important focus of DZHK. The DZHK operates as one legal entity holding all rights of data and biological sample usage, according to the DZHK Use and Access Policy. All DZHK studies collect a basic set of data and biosamples, accompanied by specific clinical and imaging data and biobanking. The DZHK infrastructure was constructed by scientists with the focus on the needs of scientists conducting clinical studies. Through this, the DZHK enables the interdisciplinary and multiple use of data and biological samples by scientists inside and outside the DZHK. So far, 27 DZHK studies recruited well over 11,200 participants suffering from major cardiovascular disorders such as myocardial infarction or heart failure. Currently, data and samples of five DZHK studies of the DZHK Heart Bank can be applied for.
Clinical research in cardiology Berlin : Springer, 2006 112(2023), 7, Seite 923-941 Online-Ressource
Background: Restrictions in systematic reviews (SRs) can lead to bias and may affect conclusions. Therefore, it is important to report whether and which restrictions were used. This study aims to examine the use of restrictions regarding language, publication period, and study type, as well as the transparency of reporting in SRs of effectiveness. - Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted with a random sample of 535 SRs of effectiveness indexed in PubMed between 2000 and 2019. The use of restrictions and their reporting were analysed using descriptive statistics. - Results: Of the total 535 SRs included, four out of every ten (41.3%) lacked information on at least one of the three restrictions considered (language, publication period, or study type). Overall, 14.6% of SRs did not provide information on restrictions regarding publication period, 19.1% regarding study type, and 18.3% regarding language. Of all included SRs, language was restricted in 46.4%, and in more than half of the SRs with restricted language (130/248), it was unclear whether the restriction was applied during either the search or the screening process, or both. The restrictions were justified for publication period in 22.2% of the respective SRs (33/149), study type in 6.5% (28/433), and language in 3.2% (8/248). Differences in reporting were found between countries as well as between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. - Conclusions: This study suggests that there is a lack of transparency in reporting on restrictions in SRs. Authors as well as editors and reviewers should be encouraged to improve the reporting and justification of restrictions to increase the transparency of SRs.
BMC medical research methodology London : BioMed Central, 2001 22(2022), Artikel-ID 230, Seite 1-10 Online-Ressource
Gesundheitliche Versorgungsplanung, Advance Care Planning, ambulante Versorgung, Pflege, Health care planning, Advance Care Planning, home care services, nursing
Pflege Bern : Hogrefe, 1995 35(2022), 6, Seite 327-335 Online-Ressource
Seite 2 von 7
