Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Klinische Wissenschaft

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Scientific Marketing in der Medizin

  • 3135 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Die moderne Medizin steht zunehmend in einem Spannungsfeld zwischen der fortschreitenden Entwicklung neuer Technologien und der parallelen zunehmenden Einschränkung finanzieller Ressourcen im Gesundheitswesen. Daher ist eine wissenschaftliche Untermauerung neuer Technologien auch zunehmend aus dem Blickwinkel des eindeutigen Patientennutzens und der gesundheitsökonomischen Relevanz der Einführung eines Therapieverfahrens in die klinische Praxis zu betrachten. Letztlich sollte der Anspruch der klinischen Forschung immer sein, die Behandlung zu verbessern und damit dem Wohle der Patienten zu dienen.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  • Albertsmeier M, Seiler CM, Fischer L, Baumann P, Hüsing J, Seidlmayer C, Franck A, Jauch KW, Knaebel HP, Büchler MW (2012) Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of MonoMax suture material for abdominal wall closure after primary midline laparotomy – a controlled prospective multicentre trial: ISSAAC (ISRCTN005725079). Langenbecks Arch Surg 397:363–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barkun JS, Aronson JK, Feldman LS, Maddern GJ, Strasberg SM (2009) for the Balliol Collaboration. Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations. The Lancet 374:1089–1096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battaglia TC, Mulhall KJ, Brown TE, Saleh KJ (2006) Increased surgical volume is associated with lower THA dislocation rates. Clin Orthop Relat Res 447:28–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumann P, Schumacher H, Hüsing J, Luntz S, Knaebel HP (2009) A randomized, controlled, prospective trial to evaluate the haemostatic effect of Lyostypt versus Surgicel in arterial bypass anastomosis: „COBBANA“ trial. Trials 10:91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettinson KA, Pinder IM, Moran CG, Weir DJ, Lingard EA (2009) All-polyethylen compared with metal-backed tibial components in total knee arthroplasty at ten years: a prospective, ranodmized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:1587–1594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EV, Stukel TA, Lucas FL, Batista I, Welch HG, Wennberg DE (2002) Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 346:1128–1137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonchek LI (1997) Randomised trials of new procedures: problems and pitfalls. Heart 78:535–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers TA (1977) Randomize the first patient. N Engl J Med 296:107

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook JA (2009) The challenges faced in the design, conduct and analysis of surgical randomised controlled trials. Trials 10:9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Angelis C, Drazen M, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, Kotzin S, Laine C, Marusic A, Overbeke AJ, Schroeder TV, Sox HC, van der Weyden MB (2004) International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. N Engl J Med 351:1250–1251

    Google Scholar 

  • Diener MK, Knaebel HP, Witte ST, Rossion I, Kieser M, Büchler MW, Seiler C, DISPACT Trial Group (2008) DISPACT trial: a randomized controlled trials to compare two different surgical techniques of DIStal PAnCreaTectomy – study rationale and design. Clin Trials 5:534–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener MK, Seiler CM, Rossion I, Kleeff J, Glanemann M, Butturini G, Tomazic A, Bruns CJ, Busch OR, Farkas S, Belyaev O, Neoptolemos JP, Halloran C, Keck T, Niedergethmann M, Gellert K, Witzigmann H, Kollmar O, Langer P, Steger U, Neudecker J, Berrevoet F, Ganzera S, Heiss MM, Luntz SP, Bruckner T, Kieser M, Büchler MW (2011) Efficacy of stapler versus hand-sewn closure after distal pancreatectomy (DISPACT): a randomised, controlled multicentre trial. Lancet 377:1514–1522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du Prel JB, Röhrig B, Blettner M (2009) Kritisches Lesen wissenschaftlicher Artikel: Teil 1 der Serie zur Bewertung wissenschaftlicher Publikationen. Dtsch Arztebl Int 106:100–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Ergina PL, Cook JA, Blazeby JM, Boutron I, Clavien PA, Reeves BC, Seiler CM (2009) for the Balliol Collaboration. Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet 374:1097–1104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer L, Baumann P, Hüsing J, Seidlmayer C, Albertsmeier M, Franck A, Luntz S, Seiler CM, Knaebel HP (2008) A historically controlled, single-arm, multi-centre, prospective trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of MonoMax suture material for abdominal wall closure after primary midline laparotomy – ISSAAC Trial. BMC Surg 8:12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenhalgh T (1997) How to read a paper. Statistics for the non-statistician. Different types of data need different statistical tests. BMJ 315:364–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kabisch M, Ruckes C, Seibert-Grafe M, Blettner M (2011) Randomisierte kontrollierte Studien. Dtsch Ärztebl Int 108:663–668

    Google Scholar 

  • Katkhouda N, Mason RJ, Towfigh S, Gevorgyan A, Essani R (2005) Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a prospective randomized double-blind study. Ann Surg 242:439–448

    Google Scholar 

  • Knaebel HP, Diener MK, Wente MN, Büchler MW, Seiler CM (2005a) Systematic review and meta-analysis of technique for closure of the pancreatic remnant after distal pancreatectomy. Br J Surg 92:539–546

    Google Scholar 

  • Knaebel HP, Koch M, Sauerland S, Diener MK, Büchler MW (2005b) Seiler CM; INSECT Study Group of the Study Centre of the German Surgical Society. Interrupted of continuous slowly absorbable sutures – design of a multi-centre randomised trial to evaluate abdominal closure techniques – INSECT trial (ISRCTN24023541). BMC Surg 5:3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knaebel HP, Kirschner MH, Reidel MA, Büchler MW, Seiler CM (2006) Operative Standardisierung bei randomisiert kontrollierten Studien in der Chirurgie. Chirurg 77:267–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Knebel P, Diener MK, Büchler MW, Seiler CM (2010) Evidenzbasierte Chirurgie. Z Herz- Thorax- Gefäßchir 24:122–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer DB, Xu S, Kesselheim AS (2012) Regulation of medical devices in the United States and European Union. N Engl J Med 366:848–855

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau H, Patil NG, Yuen WK, Lee F (2002) Learning curve for unilateral endoscopic totally extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernioplasty. Surg Endosc 16:1724–1728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim JW, Lee JY, Lee SE, Moon JI, Ra YM, Choi IS, Choi WJ, Yoon DS, Min HS (2012) The learning curve for laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal herniorrhaphy by moving average. J Korean Surg Soc 83:92–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lurz P, Coats L, Khambadkone S, Nordmeyer J, Boudiemline Y, Schievano S, Muthurangu V, Lee TY, Parenzan G, Derrick G, Cullen S, Walker F, Tsang V, Deanfield J, Taylor AM, Bonhoeffer P (2008) Percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation: impact of evolving technology and learning curve on clinical outcome. Circulation 117:1964–1972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majeed AW, Troy G, Nicholl JP, Smythe A, Reed MW, Stoddard CJ, Peacock J, Johnson AG (1996) Randomised, prospective single-blind comparison of laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy. The Lancet 347:989–994

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M, Lovett B, Griffin D (2002) Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. BMJ 324:1448–1451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moench C, Bechstein WO, Hermanutz V, Hoexter G, Knaebel HP (2010) Comparison of the collagen haemostat Sangustop® versus a carrier-bound fibrin sealant during liver resection; ESSCALIVER-Study. Trials 11:109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moench C, Mihaljevic AL, Hermanutz V, Thasler WE, Suna K, Diener MK, Seehofer D, Mischinger HJ, Jansen-Winkeln B, Knaebel HP, Bechstein WO. Randomized controlled multicenter trial on the effectiveness of the collagen hemostat Sangustop® compared with a carrier-bound fibrin sealant during liver resection (ESSCALIVER study, NCT00918619). Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2014; 399(6):725-33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qerimi B, Baumann P, Hüsing J, Knaebel HP, Schumacher H (2013) Collagen hemostat significantly reduces time to hemostasis compared with cellulose: COBBANA, a single-center, randomized trial. Am J Surg 205:636–641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rios LP, Ye C, Thabane L (2010) Association between framing the research question using the PICOT format and reporting quality of randomized controlled trials. BMC Med Res Methodol 10:11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sackett DL, Rosenberg WW, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS (1996) Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ 312:71–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schouten N, Simmermacher RK, van Dalen T, Smakman N, Clevers GJ, Davids PH, Verleisdonk EJ, Burgmans JP (2013) Is there an end of the „learning curve“ of endoscopic totally extraperitoneal (TEP) hernia repair? Surg Endosc 27:789–794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seiler CM, Kellmeyer P, Kienle P, Büchler MW, Knaebel HP, INSECT Study Group (2007) Assessment of the ethical review process for non-pharmacological multicentre studies in Germany on the basis of a randomised surgical trial. J Med Ethics 33:113–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seiler CM, Bruckner T, Diener MK, Papyan A, Golcher H, Seidlmayer C, Franck A, Kieser M, Büchler MW, Knaebel HP (2009c) Interrupted or continuous slowly absorbable sutures for closure of primary elective midline abdominal incisions: a multicenter randomized trial (INSECT: ISRCTN24023541). Ann Surg 249:576–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seiler CM, Deckert A, Diener MK, Knaebel HP, Weigand MA, Victor N, Büchler MW (2009b) Midline versus transverse incision in major abdominal surgery: a randomized, double-blind equivalence trial (POVATI: ISRCTN60734227). Ann Surg 249:913–920

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seiler CM, Rossion I, Diener MK (2009a) Klinische Studien außerhalb des Arzneimittelgesetzes. Bundesgesundheitsbl 52:433–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uhl W, Wente MN, Büchler MW (2000) Chirurgisch-klinische Studien in der praktischen Durchführung. Chirurg 71:615–625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wente MN, Seiler CM, Uhl W, Büchler MW (2003) Perspectives of evidence-based surgery. Dig Surg 20:263–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Aesculap AG, Am Aesculap Platz, 78532, Tuttlingen, Deutschland

    Prof. Dr. med. Moritz Wente

Authors
  1. Prof. Dr. med. Moritz Wente
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Moritz Wente .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. B.Braun Aesculap AG, Tuttlingen, Germany

    Hanns-Peter Knaebel

  2. Clinical Science, B.Braun Aesculap AG, Tuttlingen, Germany

    Moritz Wente

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wente, M. (2015). Klinische Wissenschaft. In: Knaebel, HP., Wente, M. (eds) Scientific Marketing in der Medizin. Springer Gabler, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36538-6_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36538-6_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer Gabler, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-36537-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-36538-6

  • eBook Packages: Business and Economics (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation