ArticleNeuro-oncology practice2017
Quality of survival and cognitive performance in children treated for medulloblastoma in the PNET 4 randomized controlled trial.
Article in Neuro-oncology practice, 2017. 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neurocognitive function and health-related quality of life in a nationwide cohort of long-term childhood brain tumor survivors.Neuro-oncology practice · 2023Article
- Neurocognitive function and survival in children with average-risk medulloblastoma treated with hyperfractionated radiation therapy alone: Long-term mature outcomes of a prospective study.Neuro-oncology practice · 2022Article
- Clinical Trials in High-Risk Medulloblastoma: Evolution of the SIOP-Europe HR-MB Trial.Cancers · 2022Review
- Self- and parent-reported Quality of Life 7 years after severe childhood traumatic brain injury in the Traumatisme Grave de l'Enfant cohort: associations with objective and subjective factors and outcomes.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 13 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe relationship between direct assessments of cognitive performance and questionnaires assessing quality of survival (QoS) is reported to be weak-to-nonexistent. Conversely, the associations between questionnaires evaluating distinct domains of QoS tend to be strong. This pattern remains understudied.
methodsIn the HIT-SIOP PNET4 randomized controlled trial, cognitive assessments, including Full Scale, Verbal and Performance IQ, Working Memory, and Processing Speed, were undertaken in 137 survivors of standard-risk medulloblastoma from 4 European countries. QoS questionnaires, including self-reports and/or parent reports of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF), the Health Utilities Index, the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, and the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory, were completed for 151 survivors. Correlations among direct cognitive assessments, QoS questionnaires, and clinical data were examined in participants with both assessments available (n = 86).
resultsCorrelations between direct measures of cognitive performance and QoS questionnaires were weak, except for moderate correlations between the BRIEF Metacognition Index (parent report) and working memory (
conclusionsWe hypothesize that the strong correlations among QoS questionnaires is partially attributable to the positive/negative polarity of all questions on the questionnaires, coupled with the relative absence of disease-specific questions. These factors may be influenced by respondents' personality and emotional characteristics, unlike direct assessments of cognitive functioning, and should be taken into account in clinical trials.
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.