ArticleCancer medicine2024
A Multidisciplinary Consensus-Building Exercise to Define and Prioritize Topics in Supportive Care of Children With Cancer at a Global Level.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionOptimal outcomes during childhood cancer treatment require effective management of toxicities, often called supportive care. A lack of agreement on what comprises supportive care limits the development and provision of comprehensive guidance (for this work, we have defined supportive care as any disease- or treatment-related condition experienced by children with cancer, excluding psychosocial conditions, palliative care, survivorship, or procedural topics). To address this gap, we conducted a consensus-building exercise among global experts to define and prioritize topics for supportive care.
methodsTwo rounds of brainstorming and prioritization exercises were conducted. A multidisciplinary panel nominated by professional societies and cooperative groups was formed to ensure geographic and resource representation using snowball sampling. An internal expert panel generated an initial list of supportive care topics. In round one, the multidisciplinary panel reviewed the initial list and recommended additional topics, followed by prioritization in round two using a seven-point Likert scale. Results were summarized using descriptive statistics.
resultsThe multidisciplinary panel consisted of 57 members representing 32 countries. The initial list included 46 topics; 161 additional topics were suggested. After removing duplicates and out-of-scope additions, the final list contained 62 topics. Febrile neutropenia, sepsis, bloodstream infections, and pain were ranked highest priority. Mortality, morbidity, and frequency of the event were identified as the most important factors influencing prioritization.
conclusionThrough a multidisciplinary and globally representative process, we identified core supportive care topics and factors influencing their prioritization for childhood cancer. Outputs from this work will inform efforts to generate resource-adapted recommendations for a global audience. This supports ongoing WHO CureAll work to develop a health systems-level policy brief of supportive care requirements in the management of children with cancer.
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.