Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40427156›Full record

ReviewCancers2025

Clinical Outcome Assessment Tools for Evaluating the Management of Gliomas.

Sachiv Chakravarti, Sneha R Gupta, Saket Myneni, Mazin Elshareif, James L Rogers, Chad Caraway, A Karim Ahmed, Karisa C Schreck, David O Kamson, Matthias Holdhoff and 4 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Sachiv ChakravartiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Sneha R GuptaDepartment of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Saket MyneniDepartment of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9484-2617
Mazin ElshareifDepartment of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
James L RogersDepartment of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Chad CarawayDepartment of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
A Karim AhmedDepartment of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Karisa C SchreckDepartment of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7181-3269
David O KamsonDepartment of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0473-658X
Matthias HoldhoffDepartment of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Victoria CroogDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21231, USA.
Kristin J RedmondDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21231, USA.
Chetan BettegowdaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
Debraj MukherjeeDepartment of Neurosurgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5403-8237

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent times, a greater emphasis has been placed on framing patient clinical assessments and QOL as both endpoints and prognostic factors for neuro-oncological care. However, there is currently a lack of consensus on the most effective metrics and instruments for use in patients with primary brain tumors. Due to the heterogeneity in clinical characteristics, histological classification, anatomical location, and available treatment modalities for glioma, quantifying patient clinical condition and QOL within this unique population is particularly challenging. In this paper, we comprehensively review the available literature on the use of clinical assessment tools in glioma patients, highlighting the strengths and limitations of prominent instruments. We demonstrate that clinical outcome assessment (COA) instruments provide valuable and complementary insights into the physical, psychological, and spiritual well-being of glioma patients.

Indexed as

gliomapatient-reported outcome measuresquality of life

Identifiers

PMID40427156
PMCPMC12110255

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.