ArticleNeurology. Clinical practice2019
Quality of life outcomes in patients presenting for evaluation of CNS tumors.
Article in Neurology. Clinical practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Natural history study of adults with primary central nervous system tumors: Initial results for first 1000 participants.Neuro-oncology practice · 2026Article
- The impact of neighborhood-level disadvantage on symptoms, mood, and health-related quality of life among the primary brain tumor population.Neuro-oncology practice · 2026Article
- Symptom management in isocitrate dehydrogenase mutant glioma.Neuro-oncology practice · 2025Review
- Patients are the best judges: Evaluating quality of life in CNS tumor care.Neurology. Clinical practice · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe describe patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in adults with CNS tumors and evaluate their correlation with physician-reported functional status.
methodsWe completed a retrospective cohort study of patients managed at a high-volume CNS tumor institute between September 2013 and September 2014. PROs were measured using 6 domains from the PROs Measurement Information System (PROMIS): anxiety, physical function, pain interference, sleep disturbance, fatigue, and satisfaction with social roles. Physician-reported outcomes were measured using the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Scale of Performance Status (ECOG). We compared differences in PROMIS scores across tumor types using analysis of variance and measured the correlation between PROMIS scores and ECOG scores using spearman correlations. Finally, we compared the range of PROMIS physical function scores within each ECOG level.
resultsIn a cohort of 2,828 patients, 1,284 (45.4%) completed all 6 PROMIS domains. There were significant differences in PROMIS scores across tumor types for all domains except anxiety. The strength of the correlation between PROMIS and ECOG scores was weak to moderate for all PROMIS domains (all
conclusionsSymptom burden was associated with tumor type. There were only weak to moderate correlations between PROMIS and ECOG scores, underscoring the importance of integrating PROs into clinical practice for patients with CNS tumors.
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.