ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2025
Development of a digitalization concept for assessing patient-reported outcomes in the context of a University Cancer Center - a model for use in clinical routine.
Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSystematic assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is essential for identifying supportive care needs in oncology. In contrast to paper-based assessments, digital tools offer key advantages such as real-time data availability, improved data quality, and workflow integration. However, digitalization also entails conceptual and technical challenges, including integration into existing clinical systems, data privacy, IT-security, usability, and data quality. DIGITALIZATION CONCEPT: This short report outlines the development and implementation of a modular digitalization strategy for PRO assessment at the University Cancer Center Regensburg. Based on the ONCO-ROUTES screening tool, the digital concept integrates common standards and applies features such as skip logic, metadata tracking, and optional response settings to balance data quality with patient autonomy. PRO data are temporarily stored and retrieved automatically by the tumor documentation system at regular intervals. Patient representatives of the advisory board were involved in the conception from the initial development stages, including focus groups. Particular emphasis was placed on usability and the respective technical setup including necessary communication interfaces. PRO results can be directly integrated into oncological patient records and hospital databases in a structured format and considered in the context of treatment.
conclusionThe concept and technical solution proved feasible for clinical implementation, enabling structured, patient-centered PRO collection in routine oncology care. Its modular design allows for adaptation to other clinical settings and supports broader efforts to digitally integrate PROs into everyday clinical routine.
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.