ArticleDigital health
Single source - triple flow: Structured electronic data capture for pancreatic surgery patients.
Article in Digital health. 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Advancements in clinical medicine depend on state-of-the-art healthcare analytics, which require patient data from electronic health record (EHR) systems and electronic data capture (EDC). We developed and implemented an independent, yet integrated EDC system (designated IMI-EDC) in a tertiary hospital. This system ensures that clinical data are available for patient care and research while complying with regulatory standards. In this study, we compared the first cohort of IMI-EDC users against those using the predecessor paper-mediated system, measuring patient comfort and satisfaction, data quality, and facilitation of workflow facilitation. Methods: Until July 2025, more than 5000 patients were able to submit their medical history and health-related quality of life questionnaires via the IMI-EDC. All patients using tablets were surveyed regarding their user experience. Additionally, a subset of 100 EDC submissions was compared to 100 submissions via the paper-based system with respect to data completeness, correctness, clarity, and readability. Finally, the time to transfer data to the Heidelberg Pancreas Registry (HPR) research database was measured. Results: IMI-EDC was successfully implemented at our center. Approximately three-quarters (75%) of patients using tablets were comfortable with the system. Tablet users were significantly more likely to submit completed documents than those using paper (98/100 vs. 66/100), and among submitted forms, fully completed questionnaires were more frequent in the tablet group (70/98 vs. 24/66). Data transfers to the HPR were quicker for tablet submissions than for paper submissions in a small pragmatic subsample (4.2 minutes vs. 9.9 minutes; 7 tablet vs. 7 paper cases). Conclusions: IMI-EDC is satisfactory for patients and staff in terms of user experience, data completeness, and workload reduction in the setting of a high-volume surgical center.
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.