ReviewNeuro-oncology practice2018
Quality of reporting and assessment of patient-reported health-related quality of life in patients with brain metastases: a systematic review.
Review in Neuro-oncology practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intracranial metastases from solid tumors: Call to action and consensus from the Society for Neuro-Oncology and American Society of Clinical Oncology collaborative.Neuro-oncology · 2026Review
- Brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer: molecular subtypes and emerging CNS-directed precision therapies.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Stereotactic Radiosurgery and Stereotactic Fractionated Radiotherapy in the Management of Brain Metastases.Cancers · 2024Review
- Co-design of a Mobile App for Engaging Breast Cancer Patients in Reporting Health Experiences: Qualitative Case Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- National Cancer Institute Collaborative Workshop on Shaping the Landscape of Brain Metastases Research: challenges and recommended priorities.The Lancet. Oncology · 2023Review
- Treatment Patterns and Outcomes of Women with Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Breast Cancer Brain Metastases: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.The oncologist · 2021Article
- Assessment Practice of Patient-Centered Outcomes in Surgical Neuro-Oncology: Survey-Based Recommendations for Clinical Routine.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Neurological Health: Not Merely the Absence of Disease: Current Wellbeing Instruments Across the Spectrum of Neurology.American journal of lifestyle medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Brain metastases (BMs) have become increasingly prevalent and present unique considerations for patients, including neurocognitive sequelae and advanced disease burden. Therefore, assessing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) via patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is an important element of managing these patients. A systematic review of the literature was conducted with the aims of (1) assessing how PROMS used in BM patients were validated, (2) assessing PROM content, and (3) evaluating quality of PROM-results reporting. PROM validation and quality of reporting were assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) grading criteria and International Society of Quality of Life (ISOQOL)-recommended PROM-reporting standards, respectively. Forty-seven studies reporting on 5178 patients with a range of primacy cancer types were included. Eight different PROMs were applied, ranging from general to brain-specific questionnaires. Weaknesses in the validation of these PROMs were assessed by the COSMIN criteria. Many of these PROMs were not developed for BM patients and contained little information on cognitive symptoms. The overall quality of PROM reporting was insufficient based on the ISOQOL scale. Given the unique clinical considerations in BM patients, our results indicate the need for a standardized, validated questionnaire to assess HRQoL in this population. Additionally, there is room for quality improvement with regard to reporting of PROM-related results.
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.