ArticleFrontiers in digital health2025
Prioritizing clinical data for psychiatric inpatient dashboards: insights from a nationwide survey of German university centers.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: As digital data collection becomes increasingly integrated into the treatment of patients with affective disorders, the use of dashboards to visualize this information for clinicians is gaining importance. However, the question of which parameters should be prioritized for display remains largely unaddressed. This study aims to identify the parameters that physicians working in psychiatric facilities consider most important for inclusion in dashboard infrastructures supporting the inpatient care of patients with affective disorders. Methods: From July 2024 to August 2024, we conducted a survey among 57 physicians working in psychiatric facilities at German university centers with varying levels of experience. We asked them to rank the relevance of 22 pre-specified key clinical parameters for digital dashboard displays. Additionally, we assessed whether characteristics such as gender, age, years of professional experience, and professional seniority influenced these preferences. Results: Forty-six physicians (80%) physicians completed the data entry. Across the sample, current suicidality emerged as the most important parameter to clinicians. Other highly ranked parameters included information on previous pharmacological antidepressant treatment attempts and data on the course of disease such as year of onset and the number of episodes. The influence of clinician-related factors on parameter prioritization was limited, supporting the generalizability of the findings. Discussion: Our findings provide practical guidance for the refinement of digital dashboards tailored to the clinical needs in the treatment of affective disorders. Future research should incorporate the perspectives of the entire multidisciplinary care team and evaluate the feasibility and clinical integration of such dashboards to ensure their broader applicability and effectiveness in routine practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.