ReviewNeuro-oncology advances
Global insights into brain tumor registries: Lessons for countries establishing a national brain tumor registry.
Review in Neuro-oncology advances. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Brain tumor registries around the world have significantly contributed to the clinical, scientific, and epidemiological understanding of brain tumors. The success of these registries has prompted many other countries to create such resources for their own populations. This narrative review compares the construction, structure, and function of brain tumor registries in the United States, China, Japan, Canada, England, Australia, Austria, Denmark, and Sweden, drawing key learnings from each. Brain tumor registries from three large, medium, and small countries were identified, and their establishment, organizational structure, and primary functions were examined. This analysis found eight key considerations for establishing a national clinical registry: (1) clearly defining the aims and objectives of the registry, (2) assessing the role of supportive legislation, (3) evaluating various registry structures, (4) assessing existing registry infrastructure, (5) weighing the benefits and drawbacks of government involvement, (6) recognizing the role of specialist centers, (7) ensuring futureproofing, and (8) prioritizing comprehensive population coverage. These findings were then applied to the New Zealand context to demonstrate how such learnings can be considered by countries wishing to establish their own registry. This review provides a practical framework for nations seeking to develop similar clinical registries.
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.