ArticleNeuro-oncology practice2024
Performance and symptom validity indicators among children undergoing cognitive surveillance following treatment for craniopharyngioma.
Article in Neuro-oncology practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Background: Performance validity tests (PVTs) and symptom validity tests (SVTs) are essential to neuropsychological evaluations, helping ensure findings reflect true abilities or concerns. It is unclear how PVTs and SVTs perform in children who received radiotherapy for brain tumors. Accordingly, we investigated the rate of noncredible performance on validity indicators as well as associations with fatigue and lower intellectual functioning. Methods: Embedded PVTs and SVTs were investigated in 98 patients with pediatric craniopharyngioma undergoing proton radiotherapy (PRT). The contribution of fatigue, sleepiness, and lower intellectual functioning to embedded PVT performance was examined. Further, we investigated PVTs and SVTs in relation to cognitive performance at pre-PRT baseline and change over time. Results: SVTs on parent measures were not an area of concern. PVTs identified 0-31% of the cohort as demonstrating possible noncredible performance at baseline, with stable findings 1 year following PRT. Reliable digit span (RDS) noted the highest PVT failure rate; RDS has been criticized for false positives in pediatric populations, especially children with neurological impairment. Objective sleepiness was strongly associated with PVT failure, stressing need to consider arousal level when interpreting cognitive performance in children with craniopharyngioma. Lower intellectual functioning also needs to be considered when interpreting task engagement indices as it was strongly associated with PVT failure. Conclusions: Embedded PVTs should be used with caution in pediatric craniopharyngioma patients who have received PRT. Future research should investigate different cut-off scores and validity indicator combinations to best differentiate noncredible performance due to task engagement versus variable arousal and/or lower intellectual functioning.
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.