ArticleThe Laryngoscope2025
Patients' and Physicians' Perspectives on Using an ePRO Structure at the Otorhinolaryngology Outpatient Clinic.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Patients' and Physicians' Perspectives on Using an ePRO Structure at the Otorhinolaryngology Outpatient Clinic.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe current study aims to evaluate patients' and physicians' experiences with the use of an electronic patient reported outcomes (ePRO) structure in a general otorhinolaryngology practice.
methodsWe conducted a mixed-methods study using quantitative data from a before-after study using a patient reported experience measure, combined with qualitative data from semi-structured interviews. Within the ePRO structure and dashboard, disease-specific questionnaires (SNOT-22, NOSE-scale and Utrecht Questionnaire) and a generic questionnaire (PROMIS-10) were completed before each consultation.
resultsA total of 152 patients were included (standard care = 77, ePRO care = 75). The majority (70%) of the patients reported that the ePRO structure was a valuable addition to the consultation, and they reported significant fewer missed topics (p < 0.010). In addition, 15 patients and all physicians (n = 5) were semistructured interviewed. They reported no benefit of the generic PROMs, but the disease-specific PROMs and open-ended question added to patient-doctor communication and increased patient empowerment. Physicians had the feeling that additional topics were addressed due to the PROMs, and the patients' needs were more upfront. Discussing PROMs did not significantly prolong their consultation.
conclusionsIntegration of an ePRO structure for patients with nasal obstruction or rhinosinusitis facilitated patient-centered care. The qualitative analysis showed increased patient empowerment; most felt better prepared, were more equal conversation partners, and felt more heard. In the future, we hope to expand the ePRO structure to other patient groups and collaborate with other institutions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3:
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.