Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26058878›Full record

SynthesisColorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland2015

Synthesis and summary of patient-reported outcome measures to inform the development of a core outcome set in colorectal cancer surgery.

A G K McNair, R N Whistance, R O Forsythe, J Rees, J E Jones, A M Pullyblank, K N L Avery, S T Brookes, M G Thomas, P A Sylvester and 13 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. A Surgeon's Field Guide to Value-Based Specialty Care.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Patient-reported outcomes after treatment for rectal cancer-A prospective nationwide study.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Development and pilot testing of a patient-reported outcome measure to assess symptoms of parastomal hernia.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Patient-Reported Outcomes in Colorectal Surgery.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2023
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

23 authors.

A G K McNairCentre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
R N WhistanceCentre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
R O ForsytheCentre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
J ReesCentre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
J E JonesColorectal Cancer Patient Representative, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.
A M PullyblankDepartment of General Surgery, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.
K N L AveryCentre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
S T BrookesCentre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
M G ThomasColorectal Surgery Unit, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.
P A SylvesterColorectal Surgery Unit, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.
A RussellColorectal Consumer Liaison Group, National Cancer Research Institute, London, UK.
A OliverColorectal Consumer Liaison Group, National Cancer Research Institute, London, UK.
D MortonAcademic Department of Surgery, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
R KennedyDepartment of Surgery, St Mark's Hospital and Academic Institute, Harrow, UK.
D G JayneAcademic Surgical Unit, St James' University Hospital NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
R HuxtableCentre for Ethics in Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
R HackettColorectal Network Site Specific Group, Avon, Somerset and Wiltshire Cancer Services, Bristol, UK.
S J DuttonCentre for Statistics in Medicine and Oxford Clinical Trials Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
M G ColemanDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Plymouth, UK.
M CardColorectal Surgery Unit, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.
J BrownClinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
J M BlazebyCentre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
CONSENSUS-CRC (Core Outcomes and iNformation SEts iN SUrgical Studies - ColoRectal Cancer) Working Group

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimPatient-reported outcome (PRO) measures (PROMs) are standard measures in the assessment of colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment, but the range and complexity of available PROMs may be hindering the synthesis of evidence. This systematic review aimed to: (i) summarize PROMs in studies of CRC surgery and (ii) categorize PRO content to inform the future development of an agreed minimum 'core' outcome set to be measured in all trials.

methodAll PROMs were identified from a systematic review of prospective CRC surgical studies. The type and frequency of PROMs in each study were summarized, and the number of items documented. All items were extracted and independently categorized by content by two researchers into 'health domains', and discrepancies were discussed with a patient and expert. Domain popularity and the distribution of items were summarized.

resultsFifty-eight different PROMs were identified from the 104 included studies. There were 23 generic, four cancer-specific, 11 disease-specific and 16 symptom-specific questionnaires, and three ad hoc measures. The most frequently used PROM was the EORTC QLQ-C30 (50 studies), and most PROMs (n = 40, 69%) were used in only one study. Detailed examination of the 50 available measures identified 917 items, which were categorized into 51 domains. The domains comprising the most items were 'anxiety' (n = 85, 9.2%), 'fatigue' (n = 67, 7.3%) and 'physical function' (n = 63, 6.9%). No domains were included in all PROMs.

conclusionThere is major heterogeneity of PRO measurement and a wide variation in content assessed in the PROMs available for CRC. A core outcome set will improve PRO outcome measurement and reporting in CRC trials.

Indexed as

Patient Outcome AssessmentSelf ReportSurveys and QuestionnairesColorectal NeoplasmsColorectal SurgeryHumansColorectal cancercore outcome setpatient-reported outcomessurgerysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID26058878
PMCPMC4744711

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.