Episode spotlight: patient-reported outcomes in urology

About this Podcast

When protocols are compared, training and accreditation are decisive for reproducibility, which has direct implications for daily practice. Recent studies suggest that threshold harmonization is still an open question, which has direct implications for daily practice. Emerging evidence indicates that cross-disciplinary review changes the initial assessment in a sizeable minority of cases, with meaningful differences between subgroups. From a workflow perspective, training and accreditation are decisive for reproducibility, as discussed in the accompanying commentary. When protocols are compared, cross-disciplinary review changes the initial assessment in a sizeable minority of cases, a finding echoed by several independent groups. Emerging evidence indicates that digital tooling shortens time-to-decision considerably, pending validation in prospective studies. From a workflow perspective, integrating quantitative measures reduces subjective bias, a finding echoed by several independent groups.