@article{ElHelouBiegnerBodeetal.2019, author = {El-Helou, Sabine M. and Biegner, Anika-Kerstin and Bode, Sebastian and Ehl, Stephan R. and Heeg, Maximilian and Maccari, Maria E. and Ritterbusch, Henrike and Speckmann, Carsten and Rusch, Stephan and Scheible, Raphael and Warnatz, Klaus and Atschekzei, Faranaz and Beider, Renata and Ernst, Diana and Gerschmann, Stev and Jablonka, Alexandra and Mielke, Gudrun and Schmidt, Reinhold E. and Sch{\"u}rmann, Gesine and Sogkas, Georgios and Baumann, Ulrich H. and Klemann, Christian and Viemann, Dorothee and Bernuth, Horst von and Kr{\"u}ger, Renate and Hanitsch, Leif G. and Scheibenbogen, Carmen M. and Wittke, Kirsten and Albert, Michael H. and Eichinger, Anna and Hauck, Fabian and Klein, Christoph and Rack-Hoch, Anita and Sollinger, Franz M. and Avila, Anne and Borte, Michael and Borte, Stephan and Fasshauer, Maria and Hauenherm, Anja and Kellner, Nils and M{\"u}ller, Anna H. and {\"U}lzen, Anett and Bader, Peter and Bakhtiar, Shahrzad and Lee, Jae-Yun and Heß, Ursula and Schubert, Ralf and W{\"o}lke, Sandra and Zielen, Stefan and Ghosh, Sujal and Laws, Hans-Juergen and Neubert, Jennifer and Oommen, Prasad T. and H{\"o}nig, Manfred and Schulz, Ansgar and Steinmann, Sandra and Klaus, Schwarz and D{\"u}ckers, Gregor and Lamers, Beate and Langemeyer, Vanessa and Niehues, Tim and Shai, Sonu and Graf, Dagmar and M{\"u}glich, Carmen and Schmalzing, Marc T. and Schwaneck, Eva C. and Tony, Hans-Peter and Dirks, Johannes and Haase, Gabriele and Liese, Johannes G. and Morbach, Henner and Foell, Dirk and Hellige, Antje and Wittkowski, Helmut and Masjosthusmann, Katja and Mohr, Michael and Geberzahn, Linda and Hedrich, Christian M. and M{\"u}ller, Christiane and R{\"o}sen-Wolff, Angela and Roesler, Joachim and Zimmermann, Antje and Behrends, Uta and Rieber, Nikolaus and Schauer, Uwe and Handgretinger, Rupert and Holzer, Ursula and Henes, J{\"o}rg and Kanz, Lothar and Boesecke, Christoph and Rockstroh, J{\"u}rgen K. and Schwarze-Zander, Carolynne and Wasmuth, Jan-Christian and Dilloo, Dagmar and H{\"u}lsmann, Brigitte and Sch{\"o}nberger, Stefan and Schreiber, Stefan and Zeuner, Rainald and Ankermann, Tobias and Bismarck, Philipp von and Huppertz, Hans-Iko and Kaiser-Labusch, Petra and Greil, Johann and Jakoby, Donate and Kulozik, Andreas E. and Metzler, Markus and Naumann-Bartsch, Nora and Sobik, Bettina and Graf, Norbert and Heine, Sabine and Kobbe, Robin and Lehmberg, Kai and M{\"u}ller, Ingo and Herrmann, Friedrich and Horneff, Gerd and Klein, Ariane and Peitz, Joachim and Schmidt, Nadine and Bielack, Stefan and Groß-Wieltsch, Ute and Classen, Carl F. and Klasen, Jessica and Deutz, Peter and Kamitz, Dirk and Lassy, Lisa and Tenbrock, Klaus and Wagner, Norbert and Bernbeck, Benedikt and Brummel, Bastian and Lara-Villacanas, Eusebia and M{\"u}nstermann, Esther and Schneider, Dominik T. and Tietsch, Nadine and Westkemper, Marco and Weiß, Michael and Kramm, Christof and K{\"u}hnle, Ingrid and Kullmann, Silke and Girschick, Hermann and Specker, Christof and Vinnemeier-Laubenthal, Elisabeth and Haenicke, Henriette and Schulz, Claudia and Schweigerer, Lothar and M{\"u}ller, Thomas G. and Stiefel, Martina and Belohradsky, Bernd H. and Soetedjo, Veronika and Kindle, Gerhard and Grimbacher, Bodo}, title = {The German national registry of primary immunodeficiencies (2012-2017)}, series = {Frontiers in Immunology}, volume = {10}, journal = {Frontiers in Immunology}, doi = {10.3389/fimmu.2019.01272}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-226629}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Introduction: The German PID-NET registry was founded in 2009, serving as the first national registry of patients with primary immunodeficiencies (PID) in Germany. It is part of the European Society for Immunodeficiencies (ESID) registry. The primary purpose of the registry is to gather data on the epidemiology, diagnostic delay, diagnosis, and treatment of PIDs. Methods: Clinical and laboratory data was collected from 2,453 patients from 36 German PID centres in an online registry. Data was analysed with the software Stata® and Excel. Results: The minimum prevalence of PID in Germany is 2.72 per 100,000 inhabitants. Among patients aged 1-25, there was a clear predominance of males. The median age of living patients ranged between 7 and 40 years, depending on the respective PID. Predominantly antibody disorders were the most prevalent group with 57\% of all 2,453 PID patients (including 728 CVID patients). A gene defect was identified in 36\% of patients. Familial cases were observed in 21\% of patients. The age of onset for presenting symptoms ranged from birth to late adulthood (range 0-88 years). Presenting symptoms comprised infections (74\%) and immune dysregulation (22\%). Ninety-three patients were diagnosed without prior clinical symptoms. Regarding the general and clinical diagnostic delay, no PID had undergone a slight decrease within the last decade. However, both, SCID and hyper IgE-syndrome showed a substantial improvement in shortening the time between onset of symptoms and genetic diagnosis. Regarding treatment, 49\% of all patients received immunoglobulin G (IgG) substitution (70\%-subcutaneous; 29\%-intravenous; 1\%-unknown). Three-hundred patients underwent at least one hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Five patients had gene therapy. Conclusion: The German PID-NET registry is a precious tool for physicians, researchers, the pharmaceutical industry, politicians, and ultimately the patients, for whom the outcomes will eventually lead to a more timely diagnosis and better treatment.}, language = {en} } @article{RothDoerflerBaessleretal.2019, author = {Roth, Nicolas and Doerfler, Inken and B{\"a}ssler, Claus and Blaschke, Markus and Bussler, Heinz and Gossner, Martin M. and Heideroth, Antje and Thorn, Simon and Weisser, Wolfgang W. and M{\"u}ller, J{\"o}rg}, title = {Decadal effects of landscape-wide enrichment of dead wood on saproxylic organisms in beech forests of different historic management intensity}, series = {Diversity and Distributions}, volume = {25}, journal = {Diversity and Distributions}, number = {3}, doi = {10.1111/ddi.12870}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-227061}, pages = {430-441}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Aim: European temperate forests have lost dead wood and the associated biodiversity owing to intensive management over centuries. Nowadays, some of these forests are being restored by enrichment with dead wood, but mostly only at stand scales. Here, we investigated effects of a seminal dead-wood enrichment strategy on saproxylic organisms at the landscape scale. Location: Temperate European beech forest in southern Germany. Methods: In a before-after control-impact design, we compared assemblages and gamma diversities of saproxylic organisms in strictly protected old-growth forest areas (reserves) and historically moderately and intensively managed forest areas before and a decade after starting a landscape-wide strategy of dead-wood enrichment. Results: Before enrichment with dead wood, the gamma diversity of saproxylic organisms in historically intensively managed forest stands was significantly lower than in reserves and historically moderately managed forest stands; this difference disappeared after 10 years of dead-wood enrichment. The species composition of beetles in forest stands of the three historical management intensities differed before the enrichment strategy, but a decade thereafter, the species compositions of previously intensively logged and forest reserve plots were similar. However, the differences in fungal species composition between historical management categories before and after 10 years of enrichment persisted. Main conclusions: Our results demonstrate that intentional enrichment of dead wood at the landscape scale is a powerful tool for rapidly restoring saproxylic beetle communities and for restoring wood-inhabiting fungal communities, which need longer than a decade for complete restoration. We propose that a strategy of area-wide active restoration combined with some permanent strict refuges is a promising means of promoting the biodiversity of age-long intensively managed Central European beech forests.}, language = {en} } @article{StrahlGerlichAlpersetal.2019, author = {Strahl, Andr{\´e} and Gerlich, Christian and Alpers, Georg W. and Gehrke, J{\"o}rg and M{\"u}ller-Garnn, Annette and Vogel, Heiner}, title = {An instrument for quality assurance in work capacity evaluation: development, evaluation, and inter-rater reliability}, series = {BMC Health Services Research}, volume = {19}, journal = {BMC Health Services Research}, doi = {10.1186/s12913-019-4387-4}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-200289}, pages = {556}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Background: Employees insured in pension insurance, who are incapable of working due to ill health, are entitled to a disability pension. To assess whether an individual meets the medical requirements to be considered as disabled, a work capacity evaluation is conducted. However, there are no official guidelines on how to perform an external quality assurance for this evaluation process. Furthermore, the quality of medical reports in the field of insurance medicine can vary substantially, and systematic evaluations are scarce. Reliability studies using peer review have repeatedly shown insufficient ability to distinguish between high, moderate and low quality. Considering literature recommendations, we developed an instrument to examine the quality of medical experts'reports. Methods: The peer review manual developed contains six quality domains (formal structure, clarity, transparency, completeness, medical-scientific principles, and efficiency) comprising 22 items. In addition, a superordinate criterion (survey confirmability) rank the overall quality and usefulness of a report. This criterion evaluates problems of innerlogic and reasoning. Development of the manual was assisted by experienced physicians in a pre-test. We examined the observable variance in peer judgements and reliability as the most important outcome criteria. To evaluate inter-rater reliability, 20 anonymous experts' reports detailing the work capacity evaluation were reviewed by 19 trained raters (peers). Percentage agreement and Kendall's W, a reliability measure of concordance between two or more peers, were calculated. A total of 325 reviews were conducted. Results: Agreement of peer judgements with respect to the superordinate criterion ranged from 29.2 to 87.5\%. Kendall's W for the quality domain items varied greatly, ranging from 0.09 to 0.88. With respect to the superordinate criterion, Kendall's W was 0.39, which indicates fair agreement. The results of the percentage agreement revealed systemic peer preferences for certain deficit scale categories. Conclusion: The superordinate criterion was not sufficiently reliable. However, in comparison to other reliability studies, this criterion showed an equivalent reliability value. This report aims to encourage further efforts to improve evaluation instruments. To reduce disagreement between peer judgments, we propose the revision of the peer review instrumentand the development and implementation of a standardized rater training to improve reliability.}, language = {en} }