ArticleNeuro-oncology practice2025
Reporting standards in randomized controlled trials involving neuro-oncology caregivers: A systematic review report from the RANO-Cares working group.
Article in Neuro-oncology practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The CARING intervention for neuro-oncology family caregivers: Primary outcomes from an abbreviated randomized controlled trial.Neuro-oncology practice · 2026Article
- Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) 2009-2025: Broad scope and implementation-A progress report.Neuro-oncology · 2025Review
- The CARING intervention for neuro-oncology family caregivers: Randomized controlled trial feasibility, eSNAP/caregiver navigation engagement, and acceptability.Neuro-oncology practice · 2025Article
- Integrated early palliative care for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma: The GLIOSUPPORT feasibility study.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
- Health-related quality of life and psychological distress in patients with brain tumors and their families: A cross-sectional web survey.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
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
Background: Family caregivers in neuro-oncology (eg, spouse, family member, friend to a patient) have high unmet support needs, yet intervention trials and effective support options are scarce. The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO)-Cares working group investigated the methodological quality of neuro-oncology caregiver outcomes reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: A systematic review was performed to evaluate to what extent RCTs assessing outcomes of caregivers of adult primary brain tumor patients adhere to minimum reporting standards. A 33-item checklist (23 applicable to secondary analysis reports) based on the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) criteria for patient-reported outcome reporting was used. Risk of bias was assessed per RCT. Results: Fifteen publications from 11 unique RCTs included 676 neuro-oncology caregivers, with low overall risk of bias. Ten publications (66%) reported on caregiver outcomes as a primary aim, of which 8 (80%) satisfied ≥2/3 of the key methodological criteria. Of the 5 secondary analysis reports (33%), 2 (40%) met ≥2/3 of applicable key criteria. Criteria often not reported adequately included sample size calculations (reported adequately in Conclusions: Whilst there are opportunities to enhance reporting standards, RCTs that include neuro-oncology caregiver outcomes generally adhere to high-quality reporting standards and have low risk of bias, indicating good potential to impact clinical practice.
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.