Clinical research projects at a German medical faculty: follow-up from ethical approval to publication and citation by others

BACKGROUND: Only data of published study results are available to the scientific community for further use such as informing future research and synthesis of available evidence. If study results are reported selectively, reporting bias and distortion of summarised estimates of effect or harm of treatments can occur. The publication and citation of results of clinical research conducted in Germany was studied. METHODS: The protocols of clinical research projects submitted to the research ethics committee of the University of Freiburg (Germany) in 2000 were analysed. Published full articles in several databases were searched and investigators contacted. Data on study and publication characteristics were extracted from protocols and corresponding publications. RESULTS: 299 study protocols were included. The most frequent study design was randomised controlled trial (141; 47%), followed by uncontrolled studies (61; 20%), laboratory studies (30; 10%) and non-randomised studies (29; 10%). 182 (61%) were multicentre studies including 97 (53%) international collaborations. 152 of 299 (51%) had commercial (co-)funding and 46 (15%) non-commercial funding. 109 of the 225 completed protocols corresponded to at least one full publication (total 210 articles); the publication rate was 48%. 168 of 210 identified publications (80%) were cited in articles indexed in the ISI Web of Science. The median was 11 citations per publication (range 0-1151). CONCLUSIONS: Results of German clinical research projects conducted are largely underreported. Barriers to successful publication need to be identified and appropriate measures taken. Close monitoring of projects until publication and adequate support provided to investigators may help remedy the prevailing underreporting of research.

[Neuromonitoring and neuroprotection in cardiac anaesthesia. Nationwide survey conducted by the Cardiac Anaesthesia Working Group of the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine]

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this nationwide survey carried out in department of cardiac anesthesia in Germany was to identify current practice with regard to neuromonitoring und neuroprotection. METHODOLOGY: The data are based on a questionnaire sent out to all departments of cardiac anesthesia in Germany between October 2007 und January 2008. The anonymized questionnaire contained 26 questions about the practice of preoperative evaluation of cerebral vessels, intra-operative use of neuromonitoring, the nature und application of cerebral protective measures, perfusion management during cardiopulmonary bypass, postoperative evaluation of neurological status, and training in the field of cerebral monitoring. RESULTS: Of the 80 mailed questionnaires 55% were returned and 90% of department evaluated cerebral vessels preoperatively with duplex ultrasound. The methods used for intra-operative neuromonitoring are electroencephalography (EEG, 60%) for type A dissections (38.1%), for elective surgery on the thoracic and thoraco-abdominal aorta (34.1% and 31.6%, respectively) and in carotid surgery (43.2%) near infrared spectroscopy (40%), evoked potentials (30%) and transcranial Doppler sonography (17.5%), with some centers using combined methods. In most departments the central nervous system is not subjected to monitoring during bypass surgery, heart valve surgery, or minimally invasive surgery. Cerebral protective measures used comprise patient cooling on cardio-pulmonary bypass (CPB 100%), extracorporeal cooling of the head (65%) and the administration of corticosteroids (58%), barbiturates (50%) and antiepileptic drugs (10%). Neuroprotective anesthesia consists of administering inhalation anesthetics (32.5%; sevoflurane 76.5%) and intravenous anesthesia (20%; propofol and barbiturates each accounting for 46.2%). Of the departments 72.5% cool patients as a standard procedure for surgery involving cardiovascular arrest and 37.5% during all surgery using CPB. In 84.6% of department CPB flow equals calculated cardiac output (CO) under normothermia, while the desired mean arterial pressure (MAP) varies between 60 and 70 mmHg (43.9%) and between 50 and 60 mmHg (41.5%), respectively. At body temperatures less than 18 degrees C CPB flow is reduced below the calculated CO (70%) while 27% of departments use normothermic flow rates. The preferred MAP under hypothermia is between 50 and 60 mmHg (59%). The results of intra-operative neuromonitoring are documented on the anesthesia record (77%). In 42.5% of the departments postoperative neurological function is estimated by the anesthesiologist. Continuing education sessions pertaining to neuromonitoring are organized on a regular basis in 32.5% of the departments and in 37.5% individual physicians are responsible for their own neuromonitoring education. CONCLUSION: The present survey data indicate that neuromonitoring and neuroprotective therapy during CPB is not standardized in cardiac anesthesiology departments in Germany. The systemic use of available methods to implement multimodal neuromonitoring would be desirable.