Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41551060›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in health services2025

Harmonization and standardization of personalized oncology care within the German network for personalized medicine (DNPM): methods of a controlled observational study employing an adapted stepped-wedge design.

Antonia Bauer, Sebastian Himmler, Nisar Malek, Lisa-Marie Brenner, Yvonne Möller, Stephanie Vigier, Markus Buchner, Leonie Sundmacher, Stefanie Joos, Peter Martus

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in health services, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Antonia BauerInstitute of General Medicine and Interprofessional Care, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
Sebastian HimmlerChair of Health Economics, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Nisar MalekCenter for Personalized Medicine, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
Lisa-Marie BrennerCenter for Personalized Medicine, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
Yvonne MöllerCenter for Personalized Medicine, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
Stephanie VigierInstitute for Clinical Epidemiology and Applied Biometry, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
Markus BuchnerInstitute of General Medicine and Interprofessional Care, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
Leonie SundmacherChair of Health Economics, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Stefanie JoosInstitute of General Medicine and Interprofessional Care, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
Peter MartusInstitute for Clinical Epidemiology and Applied Biometry, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The goal of personalized medicine (PM) is to provide tailored diagnostics and therapies for individual patients, primarily in oncology. However, significant regional disparities exist in its implementation. The Deutsches Netzwerk für Personalisierte Medizin (DNPM; German Network for Personalized Medicine) project aims to harmonize and network the implementation of PM in Germany. Methods: The DNPM project is evaluated as a Hybrid Type 3 implementation study using a non-randomized, modified stepped-wedge design. Twenty-one university hospital sites across Germany will transition from standard, non-harmonized care to a harmonized personalized medicine intervention at different time points, based on administrative readiness indicated by certification. The primary outcome is change in patient management due to molecular tumor board (MTB) decisions, assessed on three tiers using prospectively collected primary data entered by clinical staff: (1) number of patients with access to an MTB, (2) proportion with revised diagnostic or therapeutic recommendations, and (3) proportion with implemented changes. Therefore, the study aims to include 4,807 patients (intervention group: 3.507). A mixed-methods approach is employed to evaluate further aspects of the implementation process including patient and staff satisfaction, perceived quality of care, and the degree of harmonization and collaboration within the network. Health economic outcomes include health-related quality of life, healthcare utilization costs, and intervention-related costs. Discussion: The study's wide range of outcome parameters and mixed-methods approach yield robust results for implementation insights. A limitation of the study design is the lack of a clear cutoff for transitioning from the control to the intervention group and the lack of randomization. Additionally, the health economic evaluation is limited by the absence of health insurance claims data, as no insurance company is involved in the project. Trial registration: This trial is registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) under the trial number DRKS00031622 (registration date: 23 May 2023).

Indexed as

interprofessionalmixed-methods analysisnetwork-basedoncologypersonalized medicinestepped-wedge design

Identifiers

PMID41551060
PMCPMC12808450

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.