[Clinical research in service of clinical medicine: Contexts, practice, methodology and theory of Paul Martini's "clinical proof" - part 4: Adoption, resonance, and a résumé]. / Klinische Forschung im Dienst der Heilkunde: Kontexte, Praxis, Methodik und Theorie des "klinischen Beweises" von Paul Martini ­ Beitrag 4: Rezeption, Resonanz und Resümee.

Having dealt with Martini's understanding of causality and his procedural elements of evidence in the third part, the concluding article once again takes a historical perspective. It (1) traces the positionings and contexts of Martini's methodology in a sort of historical longitudinal section and (2) discusses the reasons for the rather reluctant response to his research programme in German and international medicine. We then focus (3) on Martini's understanding and concept of clinical research, the specific challenges he faced in post-war German medicine - and what remains of it today. Finally, we summarise the key findings of our article series and reflect on Martini's work in terms of its special nature and significance for clinical medicine in the 20th century.

[Participation in primary care research - From the idea to the constitution of a citizens advisory board]. / Partizipation in der allgemeinmedizinischen Forschung ­ Von der Idee bis zur Gründung eines Bürger*innenbeirats.

INTRODUCTION: Public participation in research processes is becoming increasingly important and is justified with positive effects for research. The first successful initiatives can also be found in general practice and health services research. The transparent presentation of these projects is essential to the discussion about participation. The aim of this article is to present and discuss the conception and implementation of the initiative at the Institute of General Practice and Health Services Research at the Technical University of Munich and the kick-off event for the participation of patients, citizens and patient representatives. METHODS: This article reports the planning, recruitment, implementation, and evaluation of the kick-off event. Frameworks for future events are described. RESULTS: In total, twelve persons were recruited through various recruitment channels to participate in the kick-off event. The participants showed a diverse structure of motives with regard to participation in research. All participants shared the essential goal of improving research and care by adding their perspectives to research processes. However, the specific opportunities for participation and the role of patients and citizens in research processes were unclear. During the event, future workshops were planned to address these challenges. The focus was on strengthening relationships and communicating the basics of primary care research in order to enable sustainable participation. DISCUSSION: The participants' different motivations resulted in the need to explore the concrete possibilities of participation. One of the specific requirements was to focus on role identification and the structure of the initiative. The question of self-description and -identification as a patient and/or citizen seemed crucial. Furthermore, a concise introduction to the topic of participation in research processes, as well as patient and citizen qualifications, is considered necessary. CONCLUSION: Establishing an advisory board for patients and citizens in primary care research is associated with specific requirements. In addition to fundamental necessities such as the joint clarification of the possibilities of participation, defining the role and establishing the identity of the initiative should be promoted.

Clinical trial research agenda on COVID-19 - the first two years in Germany and beyond.

BACKGROUND: We have followed the COVID-19 clinical trial research agenda from the beginning using the COVID-evidence.org platform. Now, two years after the COVID-19 pandemic started, our aim was to re-examine this research agenda with the latest data to provide a global perspective on the research landscape with a focus on Germany. METHODS: We reviewed and updated previously published data on the COVID-19 clinical research agenda as of 28February 2022 focusing on randomized trials. We used the COVID-evidence.org platform including registry entries from ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform as well as publications from the Living OVerview of Evidence platform for COVID-19 (L·OVE). RESULTS: Two years on from the pandemic outbreak, there were 4,673 registered trials. The majority of these trials have remained small with a median of 120 planned participants (IQR 60-320). In the first hundred days of the pandemic most of them (50%) had been registered in China. More than two years later, the five countries with the most registered trials (alone or within a framework of international collaborations) were the USA (825 trials; 18%), Iran (619 trials; 13%), India (566 trials; 12%), China (353 trials; 8%), and Spain (309 trials; 7%). Only 119 trials were reported to have a study site in Germany (2.5% of the registered trials). Of the 4,673 trials registered, 15% (694 trials) had published their results by February 2022. The clinical research agenda has been marked by both successes, such as the large RECOVERY trial providing evidence on 10 treatments for COVID-19 including over 45,000 patients as of February 2022, and failures: worldwide only 57 randomized trials have been registered over two years that aimed to assess non-pharmaceutical interventions (e.g., face mask policies and lockdown measures) to prevent COVID-19, and only 11 of them had published results informing decisions that have an impact on the life of billions of people worldwide. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 clinical research agenda has highlighted the substantial effort of the research community but also the challenges of the clinical research ecosystem. Most importantly, it has shed light on the ability to circumvent traditional barriers and to make trials more useful even under extraordinary conditions. The time to learn our lessons and apply them is now, and the time to demonstrate how we have improved the system is before the next pandemic.

[Patient and public involvement in clinical research: An introduction]. / Aktive Beteiligung von Patient*innen an klinischer Forschung ­ Eine Einführung.

Usually, patients participating in clinical trials have a passive role as test persons. This creates a risk that patients' needs and interests are not reflected in clinical research. The aim of the present paper is to give an introduction to patient involvement in clinical research. It is based on an exploratory literature research and our own experiences with patient involvement. By actively involving patients in the design, conduct and translation of clinical trials, research and healthcare can be better tailored to meet the patients' needs. Patient involvement has the potential to enhance the quality and relevance of research, support patient empowerment and contribute to the democratisation of research processes. There are different methods to involve patients in research, which are often differentiated as consultation, cooperation and user-led research. Methods, time of involvement and persons to be involved should be chosen to fit the aims of the involvement. While cultural, practical and personal barriers could hinder patient involvement, there are several strategies that enable effective involvement: defining the aims of the involvement, clarifying motivation and expectations as well as roles and the form of cooperation, offering training, planning sufficient resources, involving patients from the start and communicating the benefits of involvement.

[Evidence-based surgery - The Study Center of the German Surgical Society]. / Generierung von Evidenz in der Chirurgie - Das Studienzentrum der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Chirurgie.

The Study Center of the German Surgical Society (SDGC) assists surgeons to develop research questions and conduct clinical trials. Development (sample size calculation, protocol, funding application), implementation (submission to ethics committee, data management, monitoring) and analysis (statistical analysis, publication) are supported by SDGC specialists such as biometricians and project managers. Currently approximately 4,800 patients have been included in 15 trials. Systematic reviews with meta-analyses are the basis of valid sample size calculation by aggregating the results of existing studies systematically. In 2005, a work group for the development of systematic reviews has been established at the SDGC. Sixteen publications have so far been completed, and eight more are underway. Using clinical trials and systematic reviews as the fundamental cornerstones in evidence-based medicine, the SDGC has developed an effective network for clinical research in surgery.