ArticleBMC psychology2019
Monitoring neurocognitive functioning in childhood cancer survivors: evaluation of CogState computerized assessment and the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF).
Article in BMC psychology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Baseline Neurocognitive Functioning Among Children Treated for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL): Dana Farber Cancer Institute ALL Consortium Study 16-001.Pediatric blood & cancer · 2025Trial
- Longitudinal Trajectories of Neurocognitive Functioning in Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia.Journal of pediatric psychology · 2021Trial
- Adolescent Survivors of Childhood Cancer: Biopsychosocial Challenges and the Transition from Survival to Quality of Life.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Spanish Society of Medical Oncology recommendations for comprehensive assessment and care of cancer survivors' needs.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2025Review
- Impaired neurocognitive functioning 3 months following diagnosis of high-risk acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A report from the Children's Oncology Group.Pediatric blood & cancer · 2023Article
- Processing efficiency in pediatric cancer survivors: A review and operationalization for outcomes research and clinical utility.Brain and behavior · 2022Review
- Rate of radiation-induced microbleed formation on 7T MRI relates to cognitive impairment in young patients treated with radiation therapy for a brain tumor.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2021Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMany childhood cancer survivors develop neurocognitive impairment, negatively affecting education and psychosocial functioning. Recommended comprehensive neuropsychological testing can be time- and cost- intensive for both institutions and patients and their families. It is important to find quick and easily administered surveillance measures to identify those in need of evaluation.
methodsWe evaluated, individually and in combination, the sensitivity and specificity of the 1) Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning-Metacognition Index (BRIEF-MCI), and 2) CogState Composite Index (computerized assessment of cognition) in identifying below grade-level performance on state-administered tests of reading and mathematics among childhood cancer survivors.
resultsThe 45 participants (39% female) were a mean age of 7.1 ± 4.4 years at diagnosis, 14.0 ± 3.0 at evaluation, with a history of leukemia (58%), lymphoma (9%), central nervous system tumors (20%), and other tumors (13%). Impairment on the BRIEF-MCI was associated with low sensitivity (26% reading, 41% mathematics) but stronger specificity (88% reading, 96% mathematics). We found similar associations for the CogState Composite Index with sensitivity of 26% for reading and 29% for mathematics and specificity of 92% for both reading and mathematics. Combining the two measures did not improve sensitivity appreciably (47% reading, 59% mathematics) while reducing specificity (84% reading, 88% mathematics).
conclusionsWhile individuals identified from the BRIEF-MCI or CogState Composite would likely benefit from a full neuropsychological evaluation given the strong specificity, use of these measures as screening tools is limited. With poor sensitivity, they do not identify many patients with academic difficulties and in need of a full neuropsychological evaluation. Continued effort is required to find screening measures that have both strong sensitivity and specificity.
Indexed as
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.