Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34697041›Full record

ReviewBMJ open gastroenterology2021

The Newcastle ENDOPREM™: a validated patient reported experience measure for gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Laura J Neilson, Linda Sharp, Joanne M Patterson, Christian von Wagner, Paul Hewitson, Lesley M McGregor, Colin J Rees

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ open gastroenterology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07699731 (The Effect of Pre-procedural Anxiety Level on Procedure Tolerability and Quality of ERCP in Consciously Sedated Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

NCT07699731 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

The Effect of Pre-procedural Anxiety Level on Procedure Tolerability and Quality of ERCP in Consciously Sedated Patients

TypeobservationalSponsorMandip RaiRan2026 to 2027Enrolled200ConditionsAnxiety, Biliary and Pancreatic Diseases, ERCPArmsNot applicable- observational study
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Psychometric Evaluation of the Patient Experience Colonoscopy Scale.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Laura J NeilsonDepartment of Gastroenterology, South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust, South Shields, UK l.neilson@nhs.net.ORCID 0000-0002-7185-0825
Linda SharpPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Joanne M PattersonSchool of Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Christian von WagnerHealth Behaviour Research Centre, University College London, London, UK.
Paul HewitsonNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Lesley M McGregorDivision of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Colin J ReesDepartment of Gastroenterology, South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust, South Shields, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesMeasuring patient experience of gastrointestinal (GI) procedures is a key component of evaluation of quality of care. Current measures of patient experience within GI endoscopy are largely clinician derived and measured; however, these do not fully represent the experiences of patients themselves. It is important to measure the entirety of experience and not just experience directly during the procedure. We aimed to develop a patient-reported experience measure (PREM) for GI procedures.

designPhase 1: semi-structured interviews were conducted in patients who had recently undergone GI endoscopy or CT colonography (CTC) (included as a comparator). Thematic analysis identified the aspects of experience important to patients. Phase 2: a question bank was developed from phase 1 findings, and iteratively refined through rounds of cognitive interviews with patients who had undergone GI procedures, resulting in a pilot PREM. Phase 3: patients who had attended for GI endoscopy or CTC were invited to complete the PREM. Psychometric properties were investigated. Phase 4 involved item reduction and refinement.

resultsPhase 1: interviews with 35 patients identified six overarching themes: anxiety, expectations, information & communication, embarrassment & dignity, choice & control and comfort. Phase 2: cognitive interviews refined questionnaire items and response options. Phase 3: the PREM was distributed to 1650 patients with 799 completing (48%). Psychometric properties were found to be robust. Phase 4: final questionnaire refined including 54 questions assessing patient experience across five temporal procedural stages.

conclusionThis manuscript gives an overview of the development and validation of the Newcastle ENDOPREM™, which assesses all aspects of the GI procedure experience from the patient perspective. It may be used to measure patient experience in clinical care and, in research, to compare patients' experiences of different endoscopic interventions.

Indexed as

Endoscopy, GastrointestinalPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnairescolonoscopyendoscopygastrointesinal endoscopygastroscopy

Identifiers

PMID34697041
PMCPMC8547355

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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 Socratic graph.