Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30573450›Full record

ArticleJMIR cancer2018

Web-Based Patient-Reported Outcomes Using the International Consortium for Health Outcome Measurement Dataset in a Major German University Hospital: Observational Study.

Maria M Karsten, Dorothee Speiser, Claudia Hartmann, Nele Zeuschner, Kai Lippold, Verena Kiver, Peter Gocke, Valerie Kirchberger, Jens-Uwe Blohmer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Longitudinal assessment of real-world patient adherence: a 12-month electronic patient-reported outcomes follow-up of women with early breast cancer undergoing treatment.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Maria M Karsten *Klinik für Gynäkologie mit Brustzentrum, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7587-7550
Dorothee Speiser *Klinik für Gynäkologie mit Brustzentrum, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6447-629X
Claudia HartmannÄrztliches Direktorat, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8298-5557
Nele ZeuschnerKlinik für Gynäkologie mit Brustzentrum, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8118-4854
Kai LippoldGeschäftsstelle Vorstand, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2351-5915
Verena KiverKlinik für Gynäkologie mit Brustzentrum, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1356-9576
Peter GockeStabstelle Digitale Transformation, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4137-3199
Valerie KirchbergerValue-Based Healthcare, Geschäftsbereich Strategische Unternehmensentwicklung, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4478-8728
Jens-Uwe BlohmerKlinik für Gynäkologie mit Brustzentrum, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7969-250X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCollecting patient-reported outcome (PRO) data systematically enables objective evaluation of treatment and its related outcomes. Using disease-specific questionnaires developed by the International Consortium for Health Outcome Measurement (ICHOM) allows for comparison between physicians, hospitals, and even different countries.

objectiveThis pilot project aimed to establish a digital system to measure PROs for new patients with breast cancer who attended the Charité Breast Center This approach should serve as a blueprint to further expand the PRO measurement to other disease entities and departments.

methodsIn November 2016, we implemented a Web-based system to collect PRO data at Charité Breast Center using the ICHOM dataset. All new patients at the Breast Center were enrolled and answered a predefined set of questions using a tablet computer. Once they started their treatment at Charité, automated emails were sent to the patients at predefined treatment points. Those emails contained a Web-based link through which they could access and answer questionnaires.

resultsBy now, 541 patients have been enrolled and 2470 questionnaires initiated. Overall, 9.4% (51/541) of the patients were under the age of 40 years, 49.7% (269/541) between 40 and 60 years, 39.6% (214/541) between 60 and 80 years, and 1.3% (7/541) over the age of 80 years. The average return rate of questionnaires was 67.0%. When asked about the preference regarding paper versus Web-based questionnaires, 6.0% (8/134) of the patients between 50 and 60 years, 6.0% (9/150) between 60 and 70 years, and 12.7% (9/71) over the age of 70 years preferred paper versions.

conclusionsMeasuring PRO in patients with breast cancer in an automated electronic version is possible across all age ranges while simultaneously achieving a high return rate.

Indexed as

breast cancerInternational Council Health Outcome Measurementmobile phonepatient-reported outcomes

Identifiers

PMID30573450
PMCPMC6320408

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.