ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021
The Prognostic Value of NANO Scale Assessment in IDH-Wild-Type Glioblastoma Patients.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Translation and Validation of the Neurologic Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Scale into Indonesian (NANO-Ina).Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2026Article
- Extent of resection and perioperative neurological status as prognostic markers in glioblastoma: a population-based study.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2026Article
- Perioperative psychological distress in patients with intracranial tumors; a single center study.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2024Article
- Translation and validation of the Neurological Assessment in Neuro-Oncology scale to Brazilian Portuguese.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Unplanned 30-Day Readmission in Glioblastoma Patients: Implications for the Extent of Resection and Adjuvant Therapy.Cancers · 2023Article
- Usefulness and Limits of Tractography for Surgery in the Precentral Gyrus-A Case Report.Clinics and practice · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIDH-wild-type glioblastoma (GBM) is the most frequent brain-derived malignancy. Despite intense research efforts, it is still associated with a very poor prognosis. Several parameters were identified as prognostic, including general physical performance. In neuro-oncology (NO), special emphasis is put on focal deficits and cognitive (dys-)function. The Neurologic Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (NANO) scale was proposed in order to standardize the assessment of neurological performance in NO. This study evaluated whether NANO scale assessment provides prognostic information in a standardized collective of GBM patients.
methodsThe records of all GBM patients treated between 2014 and 2019 at our facility were retrospectively screened. Inclusion criteria were age over 18 years, at least 3 months postoperative follow-up, and preoperative and postoperative cranial magnetic resonance imaging. The NANO scale was assessed pre- and postoperatively as well as at 3 months follow-up. Univariate and multivariate survival analyses were carried to investigate the prognostic value.
resultsOne hundred and thirty-one patients were included. In univariate analysis, poor postoperative neurological performance (HR 1.13,
conclusionNeurological performance assessment employing the NANO scale might provide prognostic information in patients suffering from GBM.
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.