Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26203065›Full record

ArticleNeuro-oncology2015

Screening for cognitive deficits in 8 to 14-year old children with cerebellar tumors using self-report measures of executive and behavioral functioning and health-related quality of life.

Kim S Bull, Christina Liossi, Janet L Peacock, Ho Ming Yuen, Colin R Kennedy, Children's Cancer and Leukaemia Group (CCLG)

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neuro-oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Parent-reported cognitive function is associated with leukoencephalopathy in children with brain tumors.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2017
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kim S BullFaculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK (K.S.B., H.M.Y, C.R.K.); University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK (C.R.K.); School of Psychology, Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK (C.L.); Division of Health and Social Care Research, King's College London, London, UK (J.L.P.); NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK (J.L.P.).
Christina LiossiFaculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK (K.S.B., H.M.Y, C.R.K.); University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK (C.R.K.); School of Psychology, Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK (C.L.); Division of Health and Social Care Research, King's College London, London, UK (J.L.P.); NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK (J.L.P.).
Janet L PeacockFaculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK (K.S.B., H.M.Y, C.R.K.); University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK (C.R.K.); School of Psychology, Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK (C.L.); Division of Health and Social Care Research, King's College London, London, UK (J.L.P.); NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK (J.L.P.).
Ho Ming YuenFaculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK (K.S.B., H.M.Y, C.R.K.); University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK (C.R.K.); School of Psychology, Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK (C.L.); Division of Health and Social Care Research, King's College London, London, UK (J.L.P.); NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK (J.L.P.).
Colin R KennedyFaculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK (K.S.B., H.M.Y, C.R.K.); University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK (C.R.K.); School of Psychology, Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK (C.L.); Division of Health and Social Care Research, King's College London, London, UK (J.L.P.); NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK (J.L.P.).
Children's Cancer and Leukaemia Group (CCLG)
Southampton General Hospital · GBUniversity of Southampton · GBUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe aimed to identify a brief screening measure for detection of cognitive deficit in children treated for cerebellar tumors that would be useful in clinical practice.

methodsA sample of 72 children, aged 8-14 years, and within 3 years post diagnosis for standard-risk medulloblastoma (n = 37) or low-grade cerebellar astrocytoma (n = 35) and 38 children in a nontumor group were assessed using teacher-, parent-, and child-report of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF), Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), and Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL). The accuracy of these scores as a screen for a full-scale Intelligence Quotient (FSIQ) < 80 on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV UK) was assessed using their receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

resultsThe questionnaires with the highest areas under the ROC curves were the child- and parent-report PedsQL, the teacher-report BRIEF, and the SDQ. At optimal cutoff scores, their sensitivities (95% CIs) to cases of FSIQ < 80 were 84 (60-96)%, 65 (41-84)%, 79 (54-93)%, and 84 (60-96)%, and their specificities (95% CIs) were 79 (68-86)%, 87 (77-93)%, 77 (66-86)%, and 71 (64-84)% respectively. All cases of FSIQ < 80 screened positive on either teacher-report SDQ or self-report PedsQL.

conclusionsThe PedsQL child- and parent-report and the teacher-report BRIEF and SDQ have moderately good accuracy for discriminating between children with and without a FSIQ < 80. The PedsQL could be used in a clinical setting, and the BRIEF and SDQ in an educational setting, to screen for cases with FSIQ < 80 in children treated for brain tumors.

Indexed as

Executive FunctionQuality of LifeSelf ReportAdolescentAstrocytomaCerebellar NeoplasmsChildCognition DisordersFemaleHumansIntelligence TestsLongitudinal StudiesMaleMedulloblastomaProspective StudiesROC Curvecerebellar tumorschildrencognitive deficithealth-related quality of lifescreening

Identifiers

PMID26203065
PMCPMC4633931
OpenAlexW1818486211

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.