@article{HebestreitZeidlerSchippersetal.2022,
  author    = {Hebestreit, Helge and Zeidler, Cornelia and Schippers, Christopher and de Zwaan, Martina and Deckert, J{\"u}rgen and Heuschmann, Peter and Krauth, Christian and Bullinger, Monika and Berger, Alexandra and Berneburg, Mark and Brandstetter, Lilly and Deibele, Anna and Dieris-Hirche, Jan and Graessner, Holm and G{\"u}ndel, Harald and Herpertz, Stephan and Heuft, Gereon and Lapstich, Anne-Marie and L{\"u}cke, Thomas and Maisch, Tim and Mundlos, Christine and Petermann-Meyer, Andrea and M{\"u}ller, Susanne and Ott, Stephan and Pfister, Lisa and Quitmann, Julia and Romanos, Marcel and Rutsch, Frank and Schaubert, Kristina and Schubert, Katharina and Schulz, J{\"o}rg B. and Schweiger, Susann and T{\"u}scher, Oliver and Ungeth{\"u}m, Kathrin and Wagner, Thomas O. F. and Haas, Kirsten},
  title     = {Dual guidance structure for evaluation of patients with unclear diagnosis in centers for rare diseases (ZSE-DUO): study protocol for a controlled multi-center cohort study},
  series = {Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases},
  volume    = {17},
  journal   = {Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases},
  number    = {1},
  doi       = {10.1186/s13023-022-02176-1},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-300440},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Background In individuals suffering from a rare disease the diagnostic process and the confirmation of a final diagnosis often extends over many years. Factors contributing to delayed diagnosis include health care professionals' limited knowledge of rare diseases and frequent (co-)occurrence of mental disorders that may complicate and delay the diagnostic process. The ZSE-DUO study aims to assess the benefits of a combination of a physician focusing on somatic aspects with a mental health expert working side by side as a tandem in the diagnostic process. Study design This multi-center, prospective controlled study has a two-phase cohort design. Methods Two cohorts of 682 patients each are sequentially recruited from 11 university-based German Centers for Rare Diseases (CRD): the standard care cohort (control, somatic expertise only) and the innovative care cohort (experimental, combined somatic and mental health expertise). Individuals aged 12 years and older presenting with symptoms and signs which are not explained by current diagnoses will be included. Data will be collected prior to the first visit to the CRD's outpatient clinic (T0), at the first visit (T1) and 12 months thereafter (T2). Outcomes Primary outcome is the percentage of patients with one or more confirmed diagnoses covering the symptomatic spectrum presented. Sample size is calculated to detect a 10 percent increase from 30\% in standard care to 40\% in the innovative dual expert cohort. Secondary outcomes are (a) time to diagnosis/diagnoses explaining the symptomatology; (b) proportion of patients successfully referred from CRD to standard care; (c) costs of diagnosis including incremental cost effectiveness ratios; (d) predictive value of screening instruments administered at T0 to identify patients with mental disorders; (e) patients' quality of life and evaluation of care; and f) physicians' satisfaction with the innovative care approach. Conclusions This is the first multi-center study to investigate the effects of a mental health specialist working in tandem with a somatic expert physician in CRDs. If this innovative approach proves successful, it will be made available on a larger scale nationally and promoted internationally. In the best case, ZSE-DUO can significantly shorten the time to diagnosis for a suspected rare disease.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{RauchSalzwedelBjarnasonWehrensetal.2021,
  author    = {Rauch, Bernhard and Salzwedel, Annett and Bjarnason-Wehrens, Birna and Albus, Christian and Meng, Karin and Schmid, Jean-Paul and Benzer, Werner and Hackbusch, Matthes and Jensen, Katrin and Schwaab, Bernhard and Altenberger, Johann and Benjamin, Nicola and Bestehorn, Kurt and Bongarth, Christa and D{\"o}rr, Gesine and Eichler, Sarah and Einwang, Hans-Peter and Falk, Johannes and Glatz, Johannes and Gielen, Stephan and Grilli, Maurizio and Gr{\"u}nig, Ekkehard and Guha, Manju and Hermann, Matthias and Hoberg, Eike and H{\"o}fer, Stefan and Kaemmerer, Harald and Ladwig, Karl-Heinz and Mayer-Berger, Wolfgang and Metzendorf, Maria-Inti and Nebel, Roland and Neidenbach, Rhoia Clara and Niebauer, Josef and Nixdorff, Uwe and Oberhoffer, Renate and Reibis, Rona and Reiss, Nils and Saure, Daniel and Schlitt, Axel and V{\"o}ller, Heinz and K{\"a}nel, Roland von and Weinbrenner, Susanne and Westphal, Ronja},
  title     = {Cardiac rehabilitation in German speaking countries of Europe — evidence-based guidelines from Germany, Austria and Switzerland LLKardReha-DACH — Part 1},
  series = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},
  volume    = {10},
  journal   = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},
  number    = {10},
  issn      = {2077-0383},
  doi       = {10.3390/jcm10102192},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-239709},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Background: Although cardiovascular rehabilitation (CR) is well accepted in general, CR-attendance and delivery still considerably vary between the European countries. Moreover, clinical and prognostic effects of CR are not well established for a variety of cardiovascular diseases. Methods: The guidelines address all aspects of CR including indications, contents and delivery. By processing the guidelines, every step was externally supervised and moderated by independent members of the "Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany" (AWMF). Four meta-analyses were performed to evaluate the prognostic effect of CR after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), after coronary bypass grafting (CABG), in patients with severe chronic systolic heart failure (HFrEF), and to define the effect of psychological interventions during CR. All other indications for CR-delivery were based on a predefined semi-structured literature search and recommendations were established by a formal consenting process including all medical societies involved in guideline generation. Results: Multidisciplinary CR is associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality in patients after ACS and after CABG, whereas HFrEF-patients (left ventricular ejection fraction <40\%) especially benefit in terms of exercise capacity and health-related quality of life. Patients with other cardiovascular diseases also benefit from CR-participation, but the scientific evidence is less clear. There is increasing evidence that the beneficial effect of CR strongly depends on "treatment intensity" including medical supervision, treatment of cardiovascular risk factors, information and education, and a minimum of individually adapted exercise volume. Additional psychologic interventions should be performed on the basis of individual needs. Conclusions: These guidelines reinforce the substantial benefit of CR in specific clinical indications, but also describe remaining deficits in CR-delivery in clinical practice as well as in CR-science with respect to methodology and presentation.},
  language  = {en}
}