SynthesisJournal of neuro-oncology2022
Reforming support systems of newly diagnosed brain cancer patients: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preliminary Usability Assessment of a Rule-Based Digital Self-Monitoring Platform for Patients With Brain Tumors Toward Digital Early Warning Systems: Pilot Feasibility Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Longitudinal changes in cognitive ability following traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Brain communications · 2026Review
- Brain cancer patients' levels of distress and supportive care needs over time.Psycho-oncology · 2022Article
- Scoping the psychological support practices of Australian health professionals working with people with primary brain tumor and their families.Psycho-oncology · 2022Article
- Critical Competences for the Management of Post-Operative Course in Patients with Digestive Tract Cancer: The Contribution of MADIT Methodology for a Nine-Month Longitudinal Study.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDespite the increasing incidence of currently incurable brain cancer, limited resources are placed in patients' support systems, with reactive utilisation late in the disease course, when physical and psychological symptoms have peaked. Based on patient-derived data and emphasis on service improvement, this review investigated the structure and efficacy of the support methods of newly diagnosed brain cancer patients in healthcare systems.
methodsThis systematic review was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols. Articles from PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were screened with six pre-established eligibility criteria, including assessment within 6 months from diagnosis of a primary malignant brain tumour. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) Qualitative Studies Checklist.
resultsOf 5057 original articles, 14 were eligible for qualitative synthesis. Four studies were cross-sectional and ten were descriptive. Information given to patients was evaluated in seven studies, communication with patients in nine, and patient participation in treatment decisions in eight. Risk of bias was low in ten studies, moderate in two, and high in two.
conclusionsTechniques promoting individualised care increased perceived support, despite poor patient-physician communication and complexity of the healthcare system. Extracted data across 14 included studies informed a set of guidelines and a four-step framework. These can help evaluate and reform healthcare services to better accommodate the supportive needs of this patient group.
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.