26kgg090 10.3205/26kgg090 urn:nbn:de:0183-26kgg0903 Meeting Abstract Pittelkow Pittelkow Merle-Marie MM

Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Institute of Clinical Nursing Science, Berlin, Deutschland Berlin Institute of Health at Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, QUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin, Deutschland

author Nachev Nachev Vladislav V

Berlin Institute of Health at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, QUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin, Deutschland

author Hirt Hirt Julian J

Eastern Switzerland University of Applied Sciences, Department of Health, Schweiz University of Bern, Pragmatic Evidence Lab, Department of Clinical Research, Bern, Schweiz

author Hemkens Hemkens Lars G. LG

University Hospital Basel and University of Basel, Research Center for Clinical Neuroimmunology and Neuroscience Basel (RC2NB, Basel, Schweiz University of Bern, Pragmatic Evidence Lab, Department of Clinical Research, Bern, Schweiz Stanford University, Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford, Stanford, USA

author Strech Strech Daniel D

Berlin Institute of Health at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, QUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin, Deutschland

author Schorr Schorr Susanne Gabriele SG

Berlin Institute of Health at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, QUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin, Deutschland

author German Medical Science GMS Publishing House

Düsseldorf

610 20251030 engl This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Dieser Artikel ist ein Open-Access-Artikel und steht unter den Lizenzbedingungen der Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (Namensnennung). M0662 090 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Allgemeinmedizin und Familienmedizin Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sozialmedizin und Prävention Netzwerk Evidenzbasierte Medizin e.V. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Medizinische Soziologie 60. Kongress für Allgemeinmedizin und Familienmedizin Gesundheit gestalten Methoden der Gesundheitsforschung Göttingen 20260930 20261002 V-16-05 TextBackground: It is essential to evaluate the impact of resource-intensive clinical trials on clinical practice to monitor the use of research funding. One approach is to analyze whether publications reporting clinical trial results are cited in systematic reviews or guidelines, as these inform clinical practice. Cochrane Reviews are regarded as the gold standard of evidence synthesis and may inform guideline development.Aim/scientific question: To assess the extent to which results publications from a sample of clinical trials associated with German university medical centres (UMCs) were cited in Cochrane Reviews and how they contributed to the body of evidence and the results of the Cochrane Review.Material & Methods: We analyzed an existing sample of journal publications linked to registered clinical trials associated with German UMCs (completed 2009–2017). Using forward citation tracking in OpenAlex and PubMed, we identified citing Cochrane Reviews and categorized as included in the body of evidence excluded or other. Primary outcome was the proportion of publications included in the body of evidence of at least one Cochrane Review. Details of the citation context were qualitatively explored in a subsample of 10 publications.Results: Among 1921 publications, 386 (20.1%) were cited in at least one Cochrane Review and 222 (11.6%) were included in the body of evidence. Included studies were more often randomized (98.6% vs. 67.0%), blinded (57.2% vs. 39.3%), and multinational (24.3% vs. 15.3%) compared to studies that were not cited or not included. Qualitative analysis showed substantial heterogeneity in how included trials contributed to the results of a Cochrane Reviews, ranging from no contribution to major influence across multiple meta-analyses.Discussion: Only a limited proportion of clinical trials in our sample were incorporated into Cochrane Reviews, indicating restricted translation into clinical practice via this pathway. Included trials were mostly randomised and blinded. Our analyses indicate that citation-based analyses might overestimate the actual impact of clinical trials. More nuanced approaches (e.g. on citation context) are needed to assess the impact of clinical trials.Take Home Message: To improve translation into clinical practice, trials should be designed in ways that enable inclusion and meaningful contribution (i.e., blinded and randomized). Assessing the impact of clinical research to inform clinical practice requires in-depth analysis of the context of the contribution to the quantitative evidence synthesis.Competing interests: None 0 0 0 0