Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36941831›Full record

ReviewPatient related outcome measures2023

Methodological Quality of PROMs in Psychosocial Consequences of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.

Emma Grundtvig Gram, Jessica Á Rogvi, Anders Heiberg Agerbeck, Frederik Martiny, Anne Katrine Lykke Bie, John Brandt Brodersen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Patient related outcome measures, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used among liver transplant recipients: a systematic review and methodological quality appraisal.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Reply: Psychological Responses to Breast Density Notification: Empowerment or Anxiety?Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Emma Grundtvig GramThe Center of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-8519-8217
Jessica Á RogviThe Center of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-9299-4369
Anders Heiberg AgerbeckThe Center of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-0585-1483
Frederik MartinyThe Center of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-7266-1981
Anne Katrine Lykke BieThe Center of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
John Brandt BrodersenThe Center of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-9369-3376

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This systematic review aimed to assess the adequacy of measurement properties in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) used to quantify psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening among adults at average risk. Methods: We searched four databases for eligible studies: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase. Our approach was inclusive and encompassed all empirical studies that quantified aspects of psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening. We assessed the adequacy of PROM development and measurement properties for content validity using The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) risk of bias checklist. Results: We included 33 studies that all together used 30 different outcome measures. Two PROMs (6.7%) were developed in a colorectal cancer screening context. COSMIN rating for PROM development was inadequate for 29 out of 30 PROMs (97%). PROMs lacked proper cognitive interviews and pilot studies and therefore had no proven content validity. According to the COSMIN checklist, 27 out of 30 PROMs (90%) had inadequate measurement properties for content validity. Discussion: The majority of included PROMs had inadequate development and measurement properties. These findings shed light on the trustworthiness of the included studies' findings and call for reevaluation of existing evidence on the psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening. To provide trustworthy evidence about the psychosocial consequences of colorectal cancer screening, editors could require that studies provide evidence of the methodological quality of the PROM. Alternatively, authors should transparently disclose their studies' methodological limitations in measuring psychosocial consequences of screening validly.

Indexed as

colorectal cancerCOSMINmethodologypatient-reported outcome measurespsychometricscreening

Identifiers

PMID36941831
PMCPMC10024469

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.