ArticleCancer medicine2024
Measuring the diagnostic management and follow-up imaging for glioma patients across Belgian hospitals between 2016 and 2019.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Role of [18F]FMISO PET Imaging for the Evaluation of Gliomas: A Comprehensive Literature Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Patterns and quality of therapeutic care for glioma: a population-based study in Belgium between 2016 and 2019.ESMO open · 2026Article
- Measuring the diagnostic management and follow-up imaging for glioma patients across Belgian hospitals between 2016 and 2019.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to assess the diagnostic management and follow-up imaging for glioma patients across Belgian hospitals by calculating process indicators.
methodsPatients with newly diagnosed glioma in Belgium (2016-2019) were selected from the Belgian Cancer Registry. The National Social Security Number served as unique patient identifier, linking the Registry to vital status and reimbursement data. Nine measurable process related to diagnosis and follow-up imaging were identified, with reformulations for 7 due to data limitations. For each indicator, technical documentation sheets, containing all required details (rationale, numerator and denominator, target, limitations, benchmarking, subgroup analyses) were developed, reviewed by a multidisciplinary expert panel, and validated in six pilot hospitals. Per indicator, patients were assigned to the most relevant hospital per indicator using allocation algorithms.
resultsResults for process indicators assessing MRI use in glioma diagnosis and follow-up aligned with predefined targets (90%), except for early postoperative MRI (48.5% vs. target 90%). Mandatory reporting of the WHO performance status (89.3% vs. target 100%) and performance of full-spine (43.6% vs. target 90%) and follow-up MRI (73.5% vs. target 90%) in ependymoma were suboptimal. The largest variability across centers was noted for the indicator on early postoperative MRI.
conclusionThis calculation of process indicators identified opportunities for improvement in diagnosis and follow-up imaging for glioma patients in Belgium. Monitoring indicator results and providing individual feedback reports to the Belgian hospitals invites neuro-oncology care teams and hospital managements to reflect on their results and to take measures to continuously improve care for glioma.
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.