ReviewInternational journal of nursing studies advances2025
Development and application of patient-reported experience measures for cancer patients: a scoping review.
Review in International journal of nursing studies advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Therapeutic Interventions to Manage Oral Mucositis and Their Impact on Quality of Life in Cancer Patients: An Umbrella Review.Pain research & management · 2026Pooled it
- Mapping methods and tools for measuring patient experience in oncology settings: a scoping review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study examines the currently available Patient-Reported Experience Measures for cancer patients and provides a scoping overview of their definitions, evaluation frameworks, assessment tools, and current applications. The findings aim to inform and guide the development of a patient-centered care model. Methods: Using a combination of subject terms and free-text keywords, studies published by national and international initiatives were reviewed across three online databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and MEDLINE) following the PRISMA guidelines. Results: A total of 2216 papers were reviewed, of which 24 were included in the scoping review. From these, 11 Patient-Reported Experience Measures were identified, each from 10 different national projects. Definitions of Patient-Reported Experience Measures were established, and the current status of Patient-Reported Experience Measures evaluation systems for cancer patients, along with their application across four domains, was analyzed. Conclusion: Currently, research on Patient-Reported Experience Measures in cancer patients remains in its early stages, and the effectiveness of several assessment tools has yet to be fully validated. Future studies should focus on developing high-quality, cancer-specific Patient-Reported Experience Measures assessment tools. These tools should be rigorously evaluated and tailored to the unique characteristics of cancer patients' healthcare experiences, with the aim of supporting and enhancing patient-centered care practices.
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.