@article{GagyorGreserHeuschmannetal.2021,
  author    = {G{\´a}gyor, Ildik{\´o} and Greser, Alexandra and Heuschmann, Peter and R{\"u}cker, Viktoria and Maun, Andy and Bleidorn, Jutta and Heintze, Christoph and Jede, Felix and Eckmanns, Tim and Klingeberg, Anja and Mentzel, Anja and Schiemann, Guido},
  title     = {REDuction of Antibiotic RESistance (REDARES) in urinary tract infections using treatments according to national clinical guidelines: study protocol for a pragmatic randomized controlled trial with a multimodal intervention in primary care},
  series = {BMC Infectious Diseases},
  volume    = {21},
  journal   = {BMC Infectious Diseases},
  doi       = {10.1186/s12879-021-06660-0},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-264725},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Background: Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are a common cause of prescribing antibiotics in family medicine. In Germany, about 40\% of UTI-related prescriptions are second-line antibiotics, which contributes to emerging resistance rates. To achieve a change in the prescribing behaviour among family physicians (FPs), this trial aims to implement the guideline recommendations in German family medicine. Methods/design: In a randomized controlled trial, a multimodal intervention will be developed and tested in family practices in four regions across Germany. The intervention will consist of three elements: information on guideline recommendations, information on regional resistance and feedback of prescribing behaviour for FPs on a quarterly basis. The effect of the intervention will be compared to usual practice. The primary endpoint is the absolute difference in the mean of prescribing rates of second-line antibiotics among the intervention and the control group after 12 months. To detect a 10\% absolute difference in the prescribing rate after one year, with a significance level of 5\% and a power of 86\%, a sample size of 57 practices per group will be needed. Assuming a dropout rate of 10\%, an overall number of 128 practices will be required. The accompanying process evaluation will provide information on feasibility and acceptance of the intervention. Discussion: If proven effective and feasible, the components of the intervention can improve adherence to antibiotic prescribing guidelines and contribute to antimicrobial stewardship in ambulatory care.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{LichthardtKerscherDietzetal.2016,
  author    = {Lichthardt, Sven and Kerscher, Alexander and Dietz, Ulrich A. and Jurowich, Christian and Kunzmann, Volker and von Rahden, Burkhard H. A. and Germer, Christoph-Thomas and Wiegering, Armin},
  title     = {Original article: role of adjuvant chemotherapy in a perioperative chemotherapy regimen for gastric cancer},
  series = {BMC Cancer},
  volume    = {16},
  journal   = {BMC Cancer},
  number    = {650},
  doi       = {10.1186/s12885-016-2708-0},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-147743},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Background Multimodal treatment strategies - perioperative chemotherapy (CTx) and radical surgery - are currently accepted as treatment standard for locally advanced gastric cancer. However, the role of adjuvant postoperative CTx (postCTx) in addition to neoadjuvant preoperative CTx (preCTx) in this setting remains controversial. Methods Between 4/2006 and 12/2013, 116 patients with locally advanced gastric cancer were treated with preCTx. 72 patients (62 \%), in whom complete tumor resection (R0, subtotal/total gastrectomy with D2-lymphadenectomy) was achieved, were divided into two groups, one of which receiving adjuvant therapy (n = 52) and one without (n = 20). These groups were analyzed with regard to survival and exclusion criteria for adjuvant therapy. Results Postoperative complications, as well as their severity grade, did not correlate with fewer postCTx cycles administered (p = n.s.). Long-term survival was shorter in patients receiving postCTx in comparison to patients without postCTx, but did not show statistical significance. In per protocol analysis by excluding two patients with perioperative death, a shorter 3-year survival rate was observed in patients receiving postCTx compared to patients without postCTx (3-year survival: 71.2 \% postCTx group vs. 90.0 \% non-postCTx group; p = 0.038). Conclusion These results appear contradicting to the anticipated outcome. While speculative, they question the value of post-CTx. Prospectively randomized studies are needed to elucidate the role of postCTx.},
  language  = {en}
}