Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) increase the morbidity and mortality of surgery in obese patients. High levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) with lung recruitment maneuvers may improve intraoperative respiratory function, but they can also compromise hemodynamics, and the effects on PPCs are uncertain. We hypothesized that intraoperative mechanical ventilation using high PEEP with periodic recruitment maneuvers, as compared with low PEEP without recruitment maneuvers, prevents PPCs in obese patients. The PRotective Ventilation with Higher versus Lower PEEP during General Anesthesia for Surgery in OBESE Patients (PROBESE) study is a multicenter, two-arm, international randomized controlled trial. In total, 2013 obese patients with body mass index ≥35 kg/m2 scheduled for at least 2 h of surgery under general anesthesia and at intermediate to high risk for PPCs will be included. Patients are ventilated intraoperatively with a low tidal volume of 7 ml/kg (predicted body weight) and randomly assigned to PEEP of 12 cmH2O with lung recruitment maneuvers (high PEEP) or PEEP of 4 cmH2O without recruitment maneuvers (low PEEP). The occurrence of PPCs will be recorded as collapsed composite of single adverse pulmonary events and represents the primary endpoint. To our knowledge, the PROBESE trial is the first multicenter, international randomized controlled trial to compare the effects of two different levels of intraoperative PEEP during protective low tidal volume ventilation on PPCs in obese patients. The results of the PROBESE trial will support anesthesiologists in their decision to choose a certain PEEP level during general anesthesia for surgery in obese patients in an attempt to prevent PPCs. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02148692. Registered on 23 May 2014; last updated 7 June 2016.

The data linkage of different data sources for research purposes is being increasingly used in recent years. However, generally accepted methodological guidance is missing. The aim of this article is to provide methodological guidelines and recommendations for research projects that have been consented to across different German research societies. Another aim is to endow readers with a checklist for the critical appraisal of research proposals and articles. This Good Practice Data Linkage (GPD) was already published in German in 2019, but the aspects mentioned can easily be transferred to an international context, especially for other European Union (EU) member states. Therefore, it is now also published in English. Since 2016, an expert panel of members of different German scientific societies have worked together and developed seven guidelines with a total of 27 practical recommendations. These recommendations include (1) the research objectives, research questions, data sources, and resources; (2) the data infrastructure and data flow; (3) data protection; (4) ethics; (5) the key variables and linkage methods; (6) data validation/quality assurance; and (7) the long-term use of data for questions still to be determined. The authors provide a rationale for each recommendation. Future revisions will include new developments in science and updates of data privacy regulations.

As integrated care is recognized as crucial to meet the challenges of chronic conditions such as Parkinson’s disease (PD), integrated care networks have emerged internationally and throughout Germany. One of these networks is the Parkinson Network Eastern Saxony (PANOS). PANOS aims to deliver timely and equal care to PD patients with a collaborative intersectoral structured care pathway. Additional components encompass personalized case management, an electronic health record, and communicative and educative measures. To reach an intersectoral consensus of the future collaboration in PANOS, a structured consensus process was conducted in three sequential workshops. Community-based physicians, PD specialists, therapists, scientists and representatives of regulatory authorities and statutory health insurances were asked to rate core pathway-elements and supporting technological, personal and communicative measures. For the majority of core elements/planned measures, a consensus was reached, defined as an agreement by >75% of participants. Additionally, six representatives from all partners involved in the network-design independently assessed PANOS based on the Development Model for Integrated Care (DMIC), a validated model addressing the comprehensiveness and maturity of integrated care concepts. The results show that PANOS is currently in an early maturation state but has the potential to comprehensively represent the DMIC if all planned activities are implemented successfully. Despite the favorable high level of consensus regarding the PANOS concept and despite its potential to become a balanced integrated care concept according to the DMIC, its full implementation remains a considerable challenge.