ArticleBMJ open gastroenterology2023
Age-related experiences of colorectal cancer diagnosis: a secondary analysis of the English National Cancer Patient Experience Survey.
Article in BMJ open gastroenterology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Temporal Associations and Heterogeneity of Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) Payment Reform with Hospitalization Costs Among Patients with Colorectal Cancer in China.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- The Experience of Spanish Cancer Patients and Professionals With Quality of Life Assessment in Clinical Practice.Journal of patient experience · 2026Article
- Understanding Colorectal Cancer Patient Experiences with Family Practitioners in Canada.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- 'Only to reconcile with it'. The coping experience amongst middle-aged and older cancer survivors: A qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) in people aged <50 years has been increasing dramatically in the past three decades and such patients are known to face difficulties in diagnosis. The objective of this study was to better understand the diagnostic experiences of patients with CRC and explore age-related differences in the proportion with positive experiences.
methodA secondary analysis of the English National Cancer Patient Experience Survey (CPES) 2017 was conducted on the responses of patients with CRC, restricted to those likely to have been diagnosed in the preceding 12 months via pathways other than routine screening. Ten diagnosis-related experience questions were identified, with responses to them categorised as positive, negative or uninformative. Age group-related difference in positive experiences were described and ORs estimated, both raw and adjusted for selected characteristics. Sensitivity analysis was performed by weighting survey responses to 2017 cancer registrations by strata defined by age group, sex and cancer site, to assess whether differential response patterns by these characteristics affected the estimated proportion of positive experiences.
resultsThe reported experiences of 3889 patients with CRC were analysed. There was a significant linear trend (p<0.0001) for 9 of 10 experience items, with older patients consistently displaying higher rates of positive experiences and patients aged 55-64 showing rates of positive experience intermediate between younger and older age groups. This was unaffected by differences in patient characteristics or CPES response rates.
conclusionThe highest rates of positive diagnosis-related experiences were reported by patients aged 65-74 or 75 years and older, and this is robust.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.