Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34706652›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2021

Satisfaction and experience with colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review of validated patient reported outcome measures.

A Selva, C Selva, Y Álvarez-Pérez, N Torà, P López, R Terraza-Núñez, V Rodríguez, I Solà, CyDESA group

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Patient-reported outcomes and measures applied in individuals undergoing colonoscopy surveillance for colorectal cancer: a scoping review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Psychometric Evaluation of the Patient Experience Colonoscopy Scale.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

9 authors.

A SelvaClinical Epidemiology and Cancer Screening, Parc Taulí Hospital Universitari, Corporació Sanitària Parc Taulí, Edifici Santa Fè. Parc Taulí 1, Sabadell, 08208, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. aselva@tauli.cat.
C SelvaUniversitat Oberta de Catalunya (Estudis de Psicologia i Ciències de l'Educació), Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain.
Y Álvarez-PérezFundación Canaria Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Canarias (FIISC), Tenerife, Spain.
N ToràCancer Screening Programms. Althaia Xarxa Assistencial Universitària de Manresa, Manresa, Catalonia, Spain.
P LópezClinical Epidemiology and Cancer Screening, Parc Taulí Hospital Universitari, Corporació Sanitària Parc Taulí, Edifici Santa Fè. Parc Taulí 1, Sabadell, 08208, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain.
R Terraza-NúñezDirecció General de Planificació en Salut, Departament de Salut, Generalitat de Catalunya, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain.
V RodríguezTecnocampus, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Mataró, Catalonia, Spain.
I SolàInstitute of Biomedical Research, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain.
CyDESA group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient satisfaction or experience with colorectal cancer screening can determine adherence to screening programs. An evaluation of validated patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for measuring experience or satisfaction with colorectal cancer screening does not exist. Our objective was to identify and critically appraise validated questionnaires for measuring patient satisfaction or experience with colorectal cancer screening.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review following the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology. We conducted searches on MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL and BiblioPRO and assessed the methodological quality of studies and measurement properties of questionnaires according to the COSMIN guidelines for systematic reviews of PROMs. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019118527.

resultsWe included 80 studies that used 75 questionnaires, of which only 5 were validated. Four questionnaires measured satisfaction with endoscopy: two in the context of colorectal cancer screening (for colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy) and two for non-screening endoscopy. One questionnaire measured satisfaction with bowel preparation. The methodological quality of studies was variable. The questionnaires with evidence for sufficient content validity and internal consistency were: the CSSQP questionnaire, which measures safety and satisfaction with screening colonoscopy, and the Post-Procedure questionnaire which measures satisfaction with non-screening endoscopic procedures.

conclusionsThis systematic review shows that a minority of existing PROMs for measuring patient satisfaction with colorectal cancer screening are validated. We identified two questionnaires with high potential for further use (CSSQP and the Post-Procedure questionnaire).

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsPersonal SatisfactionEarly Detection of CancerHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPatient SatisfactionQuality of LifeSurveys and QuestionnairesColorectal cancer screeningInstrumentsPatient experiencePatient reported outcome measuresPatient satisfactionPROMQuestionnairessystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34706652
PMCPMC8549248

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.