Search

Purpose: The International Abstract(s) of Surgery (IAS) was a monthly supplement to Surgery, Gynecology & Obstetrics (SG&O, later Journal of the American College of Surgeons) from 1913-1994, approximately equal in size to the journal itself. It followed the example of the Zentralblatt für Chirurgie (ZblCh), which had been compiling abstracts of the current world surgical literature since 1874 (but in the German language). This article seeks to review the relationships of these surgical abstract journals in historical context., Methods: Citations in the IAS were systematically sampled for 1913-1990, and in the ZblCh and other American and German surgical publications for 1905-1940. Changes in the proportions of citations by language category were tabulated over time and related to concurrent international events and the publication histories of the sampled journals., Results: German-language citations were most frequent until the First World War, even in America. They subsequently became less frequent in America, but remained dominant in Germany. Articles in French or other languages were occasionally cited by Americans, but in German publications, they were cited as frequently as those in English. Contemporary observations from this time confirm that the American literature was being disregarded by most German surgeons. Since the Second World War, surgical publications have become predominantly English-language, even in Germany, and printed abstract compilations have become irrelevant., Conclusions: The history of the IAS and ZblCh reflects world events of the early twentieth century, the isolation and decline of German scientific leadership, the rise of American surgery, and the transition from a multilingual print-based era to one where scientific communication is primarily electronic and in English., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

When healthcare interventions prolong life, people consume medical and non-medical goods during the years of life they gain. It has been argued that the costs for medical consumption should be included in cost-effectiveness analyses from both a healthcare and societal perspective, and the costs for non-medical consumption should additionally be included when a societal perspective is applied. Standardized estimates of these so-called future costs are available in only a few countries and the impact of inclusion of these costs is likely to differ between countries. In this paper we present and compare future costs for five European countries and estimate the impact of including these costs on the cost-effectiveness of life-prolonging interventions. As countries differ in the availability of data, we illustrate how both individual- and aggregate-level data sources can be used to construct standardized estimates of future costs. Results show a large variation in costs between countries. The medical costs for the Netherlands, Germany, and the United Kingdom are large compared to Spain and Greece. Non-medical costs are higher in Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom than in Greece. The impact of including future costs on the ICER similarly varied between countries, ranging from €1000 to €35,000 per QALY gained. The variation between countries in impact on the ICER is largest when considering medical costs and indicate differences in both structure and level of healthcare financing in these countries. Case study analyses were performed in which we highlight the large impact of including future costs on ICER relative to willingness-to-pay thresholds., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: The goal of the present study was to evaluate the publication rate of abstracts presented during the German Anesthesia Congress (Deutscher Anästhesiecongress, DAC) and the meeting of the European Society of Anesthesiologists (ESA) in the years 2000 and 2005 in Medline listed journals (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed). In addition, the respective impact factors of the journals in which the articles were published were evaluated (http://www.isiknowledge.com)., Methods: All abstracts of free papers and posters presented at the DAC and ESA from the years 2000 and 2005 were included into the study. The presence of authors and the topics of abstracts in the literature were analyzed by a Medline based inquiry over a time period of 5 years. The search was based on the last name and initials of authors and when these could not be identified in Medline the search was extended by keywords of relevant topics of the abstract. Umlauts "ä/ö/ü" were replaced by "ae/oe/ue" and "ß" was replaced by "ss". Only original papers were included in this analysis. Once an original paper was found the impact factor of the journal in that year was identified., Results: A total of 465 abstracts from the DAC 2000, 378 abstracts from the DAC 2005, 644 abstracts from the ESA 2000 and 720 abstracts from the ESA 2005 were included. Of the abstracts from the DAC 2000, 183 (39%) were published in Medline listed journals, 179 (47%) from DAC 2005, 218 (34%) from ESA 2000 and 233 (32%) from ESA 2005. The ESA abstracts were published in English more often than the DAC abstracts (ESA 2000: 95%; ESA 2005: 95%; DAC 2000: 78%; DAC 2005: 86%). While the publication rate after the ESA remained nearly unchanged between 2000 and 2005, the publication rate after the DAC increased by about 7%. The average impact factors of the publications were 1.777 (DAC 2000), 2.836 (DAC 2005), 1.825 (ESA 2000) and 2.36 (ESA 2005). Independent of the congress (DAC or ESA) where the abstract was presented, most articles were published in the journal Anesthesia & Analgesia., Conclusion: In the year 2005 more abstracts of the DAC were published in Medline listed papers than in 2000. When comparing the number of abstracts published in Medline listed journals, more abstracts of the DAC were published compared to abstracts of the ESA. The increase in papers written in English after abstract presentation on the DAC is mostly due to the wider readership which can be reached with manuscripts in the English language. Besides a larger readership, English journals often also have a higher ranked impact factor. This analysis does not claim to be a complete registration of all published abstracts due to the limitation on Medline listed journals and publications in other journals were not rated. Medline was selected because of the widespread and international use of this database.

The aim of this methodological paper is to summarize evidence on how to implement cost-benefit assessment according to the new German legislative framework (Competition Enhancement Act). Given the complexity of existing health policy frameworks within industrialised countries in adapting health economics in their respective regulatory scheme, no clear international scientific consensus on which health economic methods should be chosen for assessment can be determined. Nevertheless, a broad consensus on the internal properties of methods itself can be found. Based on these common international standards in methodology, this work provides a minimum catalogue of methods and criteria that meet legal and local German requirements with regard to specific factors of its health care system. Aside from categorising clearly defined standards (e.g., study forms, cost and benefit categories) the suggested catalogue specifies some intensively debated areas in Germany (e.g., the QALY, modelling, the perspective used in the assessment). After the proposition of certain methods the paper leads to a first recommendation of a detailed assessment-process itself specific for the German way in implementing cost-benefit ratios within regulatory decision making in Germany.

Background: To evaluate the publication rate of abstracts presented during the German Anaesthesia Congress (DAK) in MEDLINE-listed journals in comparison to the publication rate of abstracts presented during the meeting of the European Society of Anaesthesiologists (ESA)., Methods: All abstracts of free papers (FP, orals) and posters of the 1994 DAK and the 1994 ESA meeting were included. Over a period of approximately 7 years (1993 to May 1999) the appearance of authors and abstracts topics in the literature were searched with the help of MEDLINE. Only original papers were included in the analysis., Results: All 322 abstracts (268 FPs and 54 posters) of the DAK and all 244 abstracts (81 FP and 163 posters) of the ESA were analyzed. A total 122 of the DAK abstracts (37.9% of all abstracts) and 111 of the ESA abstracts (45.5% of all abstracts) were published in MEDLINE-listed journals. Posters presented at the DAK were as published often (37%) as were oral presentations (38%). Of the 122 abstracts of the DAK that were published 71 (58.2%) were published in English (in 38 different journals) and 51 (41.8%) were published in German (in 8 different journals), whereas 102 (92%) of the ESA abstracts were published in english (in 42 different journals)., Conclusion: The overall portion of abstracts of the DAK published in MEDLINE indexed journals within 7 years was disappointing. The reasons for this may include deliberate avoidance of a publication (e.g. due to lack of interest to publish, no time) or low quality of the abstract that hinders publication in a MEDLINE indexed journal.