ReviewJournal of neuro-oncology2014
Quality of life research in neuro-oncology: a quantitative comparison.
Review in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Quality of Life in Postoperative High-Grade Glioma Patients Treated Using EORTC and RTOG Target Delineation Techniques for Postoperative Radiotherapy.Asian journal of neurosurgery · 2025Article
- The skull base chordoma patient reported outcome survey (sbCPROS): a patient-centered, disease-specific tool for assessing quality of life in chordoma patients.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Article
- Suicidal ideation in patients undergoing brain tumor surgery: prevalence and risk factors.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our understanding of the biology of neuro-oncologic disease has improved vastly over time, however overall patient survival remains relatively poor. Our goal as clinicians, therefore, should be to ensure that the quality of life (QOL) in that survival time is optimized. Here we review neuro-oncology QOL abstracts presented at major oncology conferences and the published literature to make a quantitative comparison to other common cancer subtypes. First, all abstracts presented at major oncology meetings from 2008 to 2012 were reviewed and filtered to find those related to QOL in CNS, breast, lung, and prostate cancer. Next, a Medline search was performed to identify all QOL papers published from 2003 to 2012 for the same cancer subtypes. The results were compared as absolute values and percentages. The average percentage of CNS QOL-related abstracts presented at ASCO and ASTRO over the last 5 years was 4.9 %, compared to 6.4 % for breast, 4.4 % for lung, and 6.1 % for prostate. There is a significant difference in total percentage of QOL abstracts over the time period when comparing CNS to breast and prostate, but not lung (p < 0.05). The Medline search revealed an average of 25.2 publications per year for CNS cancer, compared to 146.2 for breast, 39.3 for lung, and 64.2 for prostate. When looking at trends over time, publications in CNS cancer have not been as prolific and have not increased as rapidly as publications in breast and lung cancer, indicating that QOL is underrepresented in neuro-oncology research. We need to improve this by standardizing QOL measures and including them in every outcome study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24190579What 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.