Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41557047›Full record

ReviewBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2026

[Assessment of patient-reported outcomes as an instrument for patient-centered care?]

Matthias Rose

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2026. 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

1 author.

Matthias RoseMedizinische Klinik mit Schwerpunkt Psychosomatik, Centrum für Innere Medizin und Dermatologie, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Deutschland. matthias.rose@charite.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are becoming increasingly important for patient-centered assessment of treatment success in healthcare. In recent decades, a large number of instruments have been developed that allow for differentiated recording of symptoms, everyday functions, and various aspects of quality of life. PROMs are now used in nearly 50% of all clinical studies to compare treatments in terms of their benefits for patients. In addition, PROMs are used in quality assurance to compare the treatment success of various healthcare providers. In individual treatment, PROMs can be used to screen for psychological burden or mental health condition.The use of PROMs as an intervention in themselves is relatively new. Systematic symptom assessment in oncology allows side effects to be better controlled and regularly shows positive effects on patients' quality of life.Nevertheless, PROMs have been little used in routine clinical practice to date. For clinicians, the benefits for their daily work rarely outweigh the additional effort involved. The prerequisites for successful implementation in clinical processes currently appear to be, on the one hand, intersectoral harmonization of measurements and, on the other hand, better integration into electronic health records. In Germany and Europe, various initiatives have emerged in recent years, including as part of the Medical Informatics Initiative, which address both issues. It seems inconceivable that empirically oriented medicine will in the long term dispense recording one of the central therapeutic goals-how the patient is doing.

Indexed as

Patient-Centered CarePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeGermanyHumansClinical careHealth Outcomes Observatory (H2O)Medicine Informatics Initiative (MII)Real World Evidence (RWE)Symptom monitoring

Identifiers

PMID41557047
PMCPMC12852279

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.