Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37188159›Full record

ReviewNeuro-oncology practice2023

Acceptability and feasibility of cognitive assessments with adults with primary brain cancer and brain metastasis: A systematic review.

Melissa A Carlson, Elizabeth A Fradgley, Della Yates, Sarah Morris, Jordan Tait, Christine L Paul

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neuro-oncology practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Melissa A CarlsonSchool of Medicine and Public Health, College of Health, Medicine, and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9450-8491
Elizabeth A FradgleySchool of Medicine and Public Health, College of Health, Medicine, and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3535-2885
Della YatesSchool of Medicine and Public Health, College of Health, Medicine, and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3987-3007
Sarah MorrisSchool of Medicine and Public Health, College of Health, Medicine, and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2638-6381
Jordan TaitGP Synergy, NSW & ACT Research and Evaluation Unit, Level 1, 20 McIntosh Dr, Mayfield West, NSW 2304, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1920-7266
Christine L PaulSchool of Medicine and Public Health, College of Health, Medicine, and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0504-5246

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Routine cognitive assessment for adults with brain cancers is seldom completed but vital for guiding daily living, maintaining quality of life, or supporting patients and families. This study aims to identify cognitive assessments which are pragmatic and acceptable for use in clinical settings. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane were searched to identify studies published in English between 1990 and 2021. Publications were independently screened by two coders and included if they: (1) were peer-reviewed; (2) reported original data relating to adult primary brain tumor or brain metastases; (3) used objective or subjective assessments; (4) reported assessment acceptability or feasibility. The Psychometric And Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale was used. Consent, assessment commencement and completion, and study completion were extracted along with author-reported acceptability and feasibility data. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42021234794. Across 27 studies, 21 cognitive assessments had been assessed for feasibility and acceptability; 15 were objective assessments. Acceptability data were limited and heterogeneous, particularly consent (not reported in 23 studies), assessment commencement (not reported in 19 studies), and assessment completion (not reported in 21 studies). Reasons for non-completion could be grouped into patient-factors, assessment-factors, clinician-factors, and system-factors. The three cognitive assessments with the most acceptability and feasibility data reported were the MMSE, MoCA, and NIHTB-CB. Further acceptability and feasibility data are needed including consent, commencement and completion rates. Cost, length, time, and assessor burden are needed for the MMSE, MoCA, and NIHTB-CB, along with potentially new computerized assessments suited for busy clinical settings.

Indexed as

acceptabilitybrain cancercognitioncognitive assessmenteasibility

Identifiers

PMID37188159
PMCPMC10180383

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.