SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures for colorectal cancer: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) imposes a significant global burden, with approximately 1.93 million new cases diagnosed in 2022. While various patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) exist to assess the quality of life and symptom burden in this population, their measurement properties vary significantly, particularly between original and translated versions. Objective: To systematically evaluate the measurement properties and methodological quality of PROMs for patients with colorectal cancer, and to provide evidence-based guidance for instrument selection in clinical practice and research. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in Chinese and English databases, including China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, China Science and Technology Journal Database(VIP), China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase, from inception to 31 Results: Fifteen studies involving 13 colorectal cancer-specific PROMs were included. Overall, the quality of evidence for most instruments was moderate to low, with frequent deficiencies in content validity, structural validity, and responsiveness. Four instruments-Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C), Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Bowel Function Questionnaire (MSKCC-BFQ), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal Cancer Symptom Index-9 (FCSI-9), and the Low Anterior Resection Syndrome (LARS) score-demonstrated sufficient content validity and acceptable internal consistency, and were therefore classified as Grade A. The remaining instruments were rated as Grade B due to incomplete psychometric validation or methodological limitations. Conclusion: Current PROMs for colorectal cancer show variable and generally limited measurement evidence. Original English instruments tend to have more robust psychometric support than Chinese versions and newly developed local scales. FACT-C, MSKCC-BFQ, FCSI-9, and the LARS score can be prioritized for use, while further high-quality validation studies are needed to strengthen the evidence base for other instruments. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261278205, identifier CRD420261278205.
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.