ArticleESMO gastrointestinal oncology2025
Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer undergoing treatment supported by feedback auditing: the EPIC study.
Article in ESMO gastrointestinal oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) offer an objective measure of the patient experience by investigating various fields of the care pathway. We analyzed PREMs in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) undergoing anticancer therapy integrating an auditing process to allow corrective actions. Materials and methods: This is a prospective, observational, monocentric study with a four-phase sequential design: phase I validation of the PREMs questionnaires in five-level Likert item format in Italian; phase II administration of questionnaires at T0 (0-30 days since the start of oncology care), T1 (30 days-6 months), T2 (6-12 months), T3 (>12 months); phase III analysis of results during quality audits and implementation of strategies to improve care pathways; phase IV re-administration and results compared with phase II. Results: PREMs were tested for validity in 47 patients (phase I of the EPIC study). In phase II, 102 patients were enrolled, 150 questionnaires were administered and 142 returned (94.6%). Sixteen questions grouped in four areas (information about care path, contacts and accessibility, patient needs, health care awareness monitoring) were analyzed. A high proportion of patients were concerned about their future/possibility of relapse at T1 (61.6%/58.3%) and T2 (62.5%/63.7%). After the implementation of a checklist for clinicians (phase III), in phase IV, 74 patients were enrolled and the proportion of patients concerned about their future/possibility of a relapse decreased at T1 (35.7%/25%) and T2 (31.3%/43.4%). Conclusions: PREMs evaluation is feasible in the setting of mCRC. A checklist for clinicians tailored after an
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.