ArticleJournal of neuro-oncology2022
Coping with glioblastoma: prognostic communication and prognostic understanding among patients with recurrent glioblastoma, caregivers, and oncologists.
Article 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 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Palliative care in glioblastoma patients: a systematic review.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2024Pooled it
- Improving quality of care for patients with high-grade glioma and their informal caregivers: Insights from focus groups with healthcare professionals.Neuro-oncology practice · 2026Article
- The communication of a high-grade glioma diagnosis- patients' reflections and perspectives based on a study-specific questionnaire.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Article
- Article
- Recreational Travel of Patients with Brain Tumor and Their Caregivers: Context, Preparation, and Impact.Journal of palliative medicine · 2025Article
- "You sure feel like you're alone, kind of flailing away out there": Family caregiver perspectives of caring for an individual with glioblastoma multiforme.Palliative & supportive care · 2025Article
- Illness understanding and religiousness in patients with recurrent glioblastoma.Neuro-oncology practice · 2025Article
- Communication in the context of glioblastoma treatment: A qualitative study of what matters most to patients, caregivers and health care professionals.Palliative medicine · 2023Article
- Patient-Caregiver Dyads' Prognostic Information Preferences and Perceptions in Advanced Cancer.Journal of pain and symptom management · 2023Article
- Advances in palliative care in neuro-oncology come in many forms.Neuro-oncology · 2023Article
- Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues in Patients with Brain Cancer Admitted to ICU.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeGlioblastoma (GBM) is a devastating neuro-oncologic disease with invariably poor prognosis. Despite this, research shows patients have unrealistic perceptions of their prognosis, which may relate in part to communication patterns between patients, caregivers and oncologists. The purpose of this study was to examine communication processes and goals among patients, caregivers, and oncologists to elucidate drivers of prognostic understanding (PU) in the context of recurrent GBM.
methodsThis was a prospective, multi-center study enrolling adult patients with GBM, caregivers, and oncologists, who independently reported the content of a specific discussion involving the disclosure of GBM recurrence. Communication processes and goals were characterized for each participant, and concordance between all dyads and patient-caregiver-oncologist triads were calculated.
resultsSeventeen patient, caregiver, and oncologist triads were analyzed. At the individual level, three (17.6%) patients and 8 (47.1%) caregivers reported having discussed prognosis during the clinical encounter, as compared to ten oncologists (58.8%). Seven patients (41.2%) and 5 caregivers (29.4%), versus thirteen oncologists (76.5%) reported ever discussing prognosis or life expectancy at previous appointments. Generally, patient-caregiver concordance (i.e., both answered the same) regarding communication goals and processes was low. Triads showed limited concordant responses in discussing curability (n = 5), prognosis (n = 4), end-of-life treatment goals (n = 4), and ever discussing prognosis (n = 3).
conclusionPatients, caregivers and oncologists had discordant views regarding communication processes and prognostic goals, even when recalling a single discussion. This study highlights the importance of clear and frequent communication about prognosis, and the need for further research on communication and PU in the neuro-oncology setting.
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.