ArticleNeuro-oncology practice2024
Establishing the minimal clinically important difference of the Brief Fatigue Inventory for brain or CNS cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy.
Article in Neuro-oncology practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feasibility and Efficacy of Reiki Versus Massage for Cancer-Related Fatigue in Patients With Breast and Prostate Cancer Receiving Hormone Therapy.Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2026Trial
- CanRestoreFunction: Cancer-related fatigue management eHealth intervention- a pilot pragmatic randomized-control trial.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Trial
- Self-Acupressure for Fatigue in Patients Surviving Ovarian Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2026Trial
- Longitudinal fatigue outcomes and prediction in inflammatory arthritis: a real-world digital cohort study.Rheumatology international · 2026Article
- Integrating English and Chinese evidence on acupuncture and moxibustion for cancer-related fatigue (CRF): a decade of research and clinical recommendations.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Review
- Effect of home-based exercise program on patients with aplastic anemia treated with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a non-randomized trial.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2025Article
- Patient-centered outcomes and preference between darolutamide and enzalutamide: insights from the ODENZA trial.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
- Course of neuropsychological health in post-COVID patients differs 6 and 12 months after inpatient rehabilitation.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Nationally recruited telehealth group-based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia in patients with primary brain tumors: A randomized NIH ORBIT Phase IIc study.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) quantify the clinical relevance of quality of life results at the individual patient and group level. The aim of this study was to estimate the MCID for the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) and the Worst and Usual Fatigue items in patients with brain or CNS cancer undergoing curative radiotherapy. Methods: Data from a multi-site prospective registry was used. The MCID was calculated using distribution-based and anchor-based approaches. For the anchor-based approach, the fatigue item from the PROMIS-10 served as the anchor to determine if a patient improved, deteriorated, or had no change from baseline to end of treatment (EOT). We compared the unadjusted means on the BFI for the 3 groups to calculate the MCID. For the distribution-based approaches, we calculated the MCID as 0.5 SD of the scores and as 1.96 times the standard error of measurement. Results: Three-hundred and fifty nine patients with brain or CNS tumors undergoing curative radiotherapy filled out the 9-item BFI at baseline and EOT. The MCID for the BFI was 1.33 (ranging from 0.99 to 1.70 across the approaches), 1.51 (ranging from 1.16 to 2.02) and 1.76 (ranging from 1.38 to 2.14) for the usual and worst fatigue items, respectively. Conclusions: This study provides the MCID ranges for the BFI and Worst and Usual fatigue items, which will allow clinically meaningful conclusions to be drawn from BFI scores. These results can be used to select optimal treatments for patients with brain or CNS cancer or to interpret BFI scores from clinical trials.
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.