Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41364916›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Data Visualization Support for Interdisciplinary Team Treatment Planning in Clinical Oncology: Scoping Review.

Dominik Boehm, Cosima Strantz, Arsenij Ustjanzew, Iryna Manuilova, Alexander Scheiter, Thomas Pauli, Nicole Hechtel, Niklas Reimer, Jan Christoph, Hauke Busch and 2 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

12 authors.

Dominik BoehmMedical Center for Information and Communication Technology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-2887-7109
Cosima StrantzChair of Medical Informatics, Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometrics and Epidemiology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-3980-8233
Arsenij UstjanzewInstitute of Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics (IMBEI), University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1014-4521
Iryna ManuilovaJunior Research Group (Bio-)Medical Data Science, Faculty of Medicine, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-8821-1471
Alexander ScheiterInstitute of Pathology, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6734-261X
Thomas PauliInstitute of Medical Bioinformatics and Systems Medicine, Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8381-6624
Nicole HechtelPeter L. Reichertz Institute for Medical Informatics, University of Braunschweig - Institute of Technology and Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-7440-2676
Niklas ReimerInstitute for Systems Biology, Lübeck Institute of Experimental Dermatology, University of Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0491-3929
Jan ChristophChair of Medical Informatics, Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometrics and Epidemiology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4369-3591
Hauke BuschInstitute for Systems Biology, Lübeck Institute of Experimental Dermatology, University of Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4763-4521
Thomas GanslandtChair of Medical Informatics, Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometrics and Epidemiology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6864-8936
Philipp UnberathMedical Center for Information and Communication Technology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1269-9360

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComplex and expanding datasets in clinical oncology applications require flexible and interactive visualization of patient data to provide physicians and other medical professionals with maximum amount of information. In particular, interdisciplinary tumor conferences profit from customized tools to integrate, link, and visualize relevant data from all professions involved.

objectiveOur objective was to identify and present currently available data visualization tools for tumor boards and related areas. We wanted to provide an overview of not only the digital tools currently used in tumor board settings but also of the data they include, their respective visualization solutions, and their integration into hospital processes.

methodsThis scoping review was based on the scoping study framework by Arksey and O'Malley and attempted to answer the following research question: "What are the key features of data visualization solutions used in molecular and organ tumor boards, and how are these elements integrated and used within the clinical setting?" The following electronic databases were searched for articles: PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. Articles were deemed eligible if published in English in the last 10 years. Eligible articles were first deduplicated, followed by screening of titles and abstracts. Full-text screening was then conducted to decide on article selection. All included articles were analyzed using a data extraction template. The template included a variety of meta-information, as well as specific fields aiming to answer the research question.

resultsThe review process started with 2049 articles, of which 1014 (49.49%) were included in the title and abstract screening. A total of 5.47% (112/2049) of the publications were eligible for full-text screening, leading to 2.93% (60/2049) of the publications being eligible for final inclusion. They covered 49 distinct visualization tools and applications. We discovered a variety of innovative visualization solutions, most often driven by the complexity of omics data, represented in 96% (47/49) of the tools. Tables remained the most used tool for the visualization of data types described in the articles. Approximately one-third of the identified tools (16/49, 33%) were systematically evaluated in some form. For most discovered tools (37/49, 76%), there was no documentation of implementation into the clinical routine. A significant number of applications (21/49, 43%) were available through open-source access.

conclusionsThere is a wide range of projects providing visualization solutions for tumor boards and clinical oncology applications. Among the few tools that have made their way into clinical routine settings, there are both commercial and academic solutions. While tables for a variety of data types remain the dominant visualization strategy, the complexity of omics data appears to be the driving force behind many visualization innovations in the domain of tumor boards. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/53627.

Indexed as

Data VisualizationMedical OncologyNeoplasmsPatient Care TeamHumanscancer conferenceclinical oncologymultidisciplinaryscoping reviewsoftwaretumortumor boardvisualization

Identifiers

PMID41364916
PMCPMC12728401

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.