Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 19, 2026
E-Patient Counseling Trial E-PACO: Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy
Published on: August 1, 2019
Modified Edmonton Symptom Assessment System including constipation and sleep: validation in outpatients with cancer
Breffni Hannon1, Martin Dyck2, Ashley Pope2
1Division of Medical Oncology & Haematology, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Department of Psychosocial Oncology & Palliative Care, Ontario Cancer Institute, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Context:
The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) measures the severity of nine symptoms. Constipation and sleep disturbance are common in patients with cancer, but are not currently included in the ESAS.
Objectives:
To validate the numerical rating scale (NRS) versions of ESAS and its revised version (ESAS-r), with the additional symptoms of constipation and sleep (CS), and to assess patient preference for either version.
Methods:
Outpatients with advanced cancer (N = 202) completed three assessments during a single clinic visit: ESAS-CS, and an added time window of "past 24 hours"; ESAS-r-CS, with a time window of "now" and symptom definitions; and the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS). Internal consistency was calculated using Cronbach's alpha. Paired t-tests compared ESAS-CS and ESAS-r-CS scores; these were correlated with MSAS using Spearman correlation coefficients. Test-retest reliability at 24 hours was assessed in 26 patients.
Results:
ESAS-CS and ESAS-r-CS total scores correlated well with total MSAS (Spearman's rho 0.62 and 0.64, respectively). Correlation of individual symptoms with MSAS symptoms ranged from 0.54-0.80 for ESAS-CS and 0.52-0.74 for ESAS-r-CS. Although participants preferred the ESAS-r-CS format (42.8% vs. 18.6%) because of greater clarity and understandability, the "past 24 hours" time window (52.8%) was favored over "now" (21.3%). Shortness of breath and nausea correlated better for the "past 24 hours" time window (0.8 and 0.72 vs. 0.74 and 0.64 in ESAS-r-CS, respectively). The 24-hour test-retest of the ESAS-CS demonstrated acceptable reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.69).
Conclusion:
The ESAS-CS and ESAS-r-CS NRS versions are valid and reliable for measuring symptoms in this population of outpatients with advanced cancer. Although the ESAS-r-CS was preferred, patients favored the 24-hour time window of the ESAS-CS, which also may best characterize fluctuating symptoms.
