ArticleCancer causes & control : CCC2024
Health utility assessments in individuals undergoing diagnostic and surveillance colonoscopy: improved discrimination with a cancer-specific scale.
Article in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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 · 2026Article
- Impact of colonoscopy on health-related quality of life: findings from the RECEDE study.Health and quality of life outcomes · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the sensitivity and discriminant validity of generic and cancer-specific measures for assessing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for individuals undergoing diagnostic or surveillance colonoscopy for colorectal cancer.
methodsHRQoL was assessed using EQ-5D-5L (generic), and EORTC QLQ-C30 (cancer-specific) scales, 14 days after (baseline) and one-year following colonoscopy (follow-up). Utility scores were calculated by mapping EORTC-QLQ-C30 onto QLU-C10D. Differences between participants with different indications for colonoscopy (positive faecal occult blood test (FOBT), surveillance, or symptoms) and colonoscopy findings (no polyps, polyps, or cancer) were tested using Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis H tests. Sensitivity was assessed by calculating the ceiling effects (proportion reporting the best possible level).
results246 adults completed the survey, including those undergoing colonoscopy for symptoms (n = 87), positive FOBT (n = 92) or surveillance (n = 67). Those with symptoms had the lowest HRQoL at both baseline and follow-up, with differences observed within the HRQoL domains/areas of role function, appetite loss and bowel function on the QLU-C10D. No differences were found in HRQoL when stratified by findings at colonoscopy with both measures or when comparing baseline and follow-up responses. Participants reporting full health with EQ-5D-5L (21% at baseline and 16% at follow-up) still had problems on the QLU-C10D, with fatigue and sleep at baseline and with role function and fatigue at follow-up.
conclusionPatients undergoing colonoscopy for symptoms had lower HRQoL compared to surveillance or positive FOBT. The cancer-specific QLU-C10D was more sensitive and had greater discriminant ability between patients undergoing colonoscopy for different indications.
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.