Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39110186›Full record

ReviewUrologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2024

[Patient-reported outcomes-the role of the patient's subjective perspective for research and clinical care].

Andreas Dinkel, Matthias Jahnen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

2 authors.

Andreas DinkelKlinik und Poliklinik für Psychosomatische Medizin und Psychotherapie, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine and Health, Technische Universität München, Langerstr. 3, 81675, München, Deutschland. a.dinkel@tum.de.
Matthias JahnenKlinik und Poliklinik für Psychosomatische Medizin und Psychotherapie, Klinikum rechts der Isar, School of Medicine and Health, Technische Universität München, Langerstr. 3, 81675, München, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Because only patients can adequately assess symptoms, disability, and quality of life, concordance between a patient's and physician's assessment is often low. Accordingly, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in research and routine clinical care. In daily practice, PROs are not only applied to measure the patient's perceived outcome of medical treatments, but also to assess their health status before intervention starts. Typically, several patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), which are reliable and valid, are available for the assessment of the most important PROMs. In daily clinical practice, the integration of PROs can be useful for clinical assessment and treatment planning or for quality management. Currently, the most promising application is routine patient monitoring using digital PROMs (ePROMs). Systematic reviews have revealed that the routine use of PROMs in daily clinical care is associated with, among others, improved physician-patient communication, higher patient satisfaction, reduced symptom burden, higher quality of life, and improved survival. This effect is especially strong if health care professionals continuously receive the results of the PRO monitoring. Patients are usually inclined to disclose their health status, and the positive effects of routine patient monitoring are widely recognized. However, several barriers to using PROs and PROMs still exist.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresPatient SatisfactionBiomedical ResearchHumansPhysician-Patient RelationsQuality of LifeDelivery of health careHealth assessmentPatient monitoringPatient-reported outcome measuresProstate cancer

Identifiers

PMID39110186
PMCPMC11343820

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.