@article{WeibelPoppReisetal.2023,
  author    = {Weibel, Stephanie and Popp, Maria and Reis, Stefanie and Skoetz, Nicole and Garner, Paul and Sydenham, Emma},
  title     = {Identifying and managing problematic trials: A research integrity assessment tool for randomized controlled trials in evidence synthesis},
  series = {Research Synthesis Methods},
  volume    = {14},
  journal   = {Research Synthesis Methods},
  number    = {3},
  doi       = {10.1002/jrsm.1599},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-318236},
  pages     = {357 -- 369},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {Evidence synthesis findings depend on the assumption that the included studies follow good clinical practice and results are not fabricated or false. Studies which are problematic due to scientific misconduct, poor research practice, or honest error may distort evidence synthesis findings. Authors of evidence synthesis need transparent mechanisms to identify and manage problematic studies to avoid misleading findings. As evidence synthesis authors of the Cochrane COVID-19 review on ivermectin, we identified many problematic studies in terms of research integrity and regulatory compliance. Through iterative discussion, we developed a research integrity assessment (RIA) tool for randomized controlled trials for the update of this Cochrane review. In this paper, we explain the rationale and application of the RIA tool in this case study. RIA assesses six study criteria: study retraction, prospective trial registration, adequate ethics approval, author group, plausibility of methods (e.g., randomization), and plausibility of study results. RIA was used in the Cochrane review as part of the eligibility check during screening of potentially eligible studies. Problematic studies were excluded and studies with open questions were held in awaiting classification until clarified. RIA decisions were made independently by two authors and reported transparently. Using the RIA tool resulted in the exclusion of >40\% of studies in the first update of the review. RIA is a complementary tool prior to assessing "Risk of Bias" aiming to establish the integrity and authenticity of studies. RIA provides a platform for urgent development of a standard approach to identifying and managing problematic studies.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SchraderRuckBorgulyaetal.2023,
  author    = {Schrader, Hanna and Ruck, Jessica and Borgulya, G{\´a}bor and Parisi, Sandra and Ehlers-Mondorf, Jana and Kaduszkiewicz, Hanna and Joos, Stefanie and Grau, Anna and Linde, Klaus and G{\´a}gyor, Ildik{\´o}},
  title     = {Stress experiences of healthcare assistants in family practice at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic},
  series = {Frontiers in Public Health},
  volume    = {11},
  journal   = {Frontiers in Public Health},
  issn      = {2296-2565},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpubh.2023.1238144},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-327427},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {Background: At the beginning of the pandemic in 2020, healthcare assistants in general practices were confronted with numerous new challenges. The aim of the study was to investigate the stress factors of healthcare assistants in March/April 2020 as well as in the further course of the pandemic in 2020. Methods: From August to December 2020, 6,300 randomly selected healthcare assistants in four German states were invited to participate in the study. We performed a mixed methods design using semi-structured telephone interviews and a cross-sectional survey with quantitative and open questions. The feeling of psychological burden was assessed on a 6-point likert-scale. We defined stress factors and categorized them in patient, non-patient and organizational stress factors. The results of the three data sets were compared within a triangulation protocol. Results: One thousand two hundred seventy-four surveys were analyzed and 28 interviews with 34 healthcare assistants were conducted. Of the participants, 29.5\% reported experiences of a very high or high feeling of psychological burden in March/April 2020. Worries about the patients' health and an uncertainty around the new disease were among the patient-related stress factors. Non-patient-related stress factors were problems with the compatibility of work and family, and the fear of infecting relatives with COVID-19. Organizational efforts and dissatisfaction with governmental pandemic management were reported as organizational stress factors. Support from the employer and team cohesion were considered as important resources. Discussion: It is necessary to reduce stress among healthcare assistants by improving their working conditions and to strengthen their resilience to ensure primary healthcare delivery in future health crises.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{DiersAcarWagneretal.2022,
  author    = {Diers, Johannes and Acar, Laura and Wagner, Johanna C. and Baum, Philip and Hankir, Mohammed and Flemming, Sven and Kastner, Carolin and Germer, Christoph-Thomas and L'hoest, Helmut and Marschall, Ursula and Lock, Johan Friso and Wiegering, Armin},
  title     = {Cancer diagnosis is one quarter lower than the expected cancer incidence in the first year of COVID-19 pandemic in Germany: A retrospective register-based cohort study},
  series = {Cancer Communications},
  volume    = {42},
  journal   = {Cancer Communications},
  number    = {7},
  doi       = {10.1002/cac2.12314},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-312862},
  pages     = {673-676},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {No abstract available.},
  language  = {en}
}