ReviewNeuro-oncology practice2025
Evaluating current quality indicators used in the care of adult patients with glioblastoma: A scoping review of the literature.
Review 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 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.
- Quality measurements in neuro-oncology: A critical look at glioblastoma indicators and the path forward.Neuro-oncology practice · 2025Article
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
Background: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most aggressive primary brain neoplasm in adults, characterized by high recurrence and poor post-recurrence survival. Validated quality indicators (QIs) have been used to assess the quality of care in many cancer populations, now providing clinicians, researchers, and healthcare policymakers with evidence-based metrics to enhance patient outcomes. In contrast, few glioblastoma-specific QIs have been described and their impact and meaningfulness are yet to be determined. Methods: A scoping review was conducted of described QIs for adult patients with GBM. The literature was screened for relevance, and eligible QIs were evaluated and grouped into 5 domains: pre-intervention, surgical, postsurgical, supportive care, and recurrence/survival. Results: A total of 80 articles were retrieved, with 12 of these studies meeting inclusion criteria. Twenty-six QIs were identified across the 5 care domains. Evidence linking these QIs directly to improved survival or quality of life is variable. Some QIs have solid evidence of impact (eg, accurate tissue diagnosis), while others are based on reasonably assumed benefits rather than robust evidence (eg, early palliative care referral). Frail or older patients and those with recurrent GBM are subsets with the least high-quality QIs. Conclusions: Current QIs potentially provide valuable benchmarks to assess and optimize care in adults with glioblastoma, but many are yet to be supported by high-quality clinical evidence, with greater gaps in some patient populations. Further research is required to define and validate QIs that robustly assess quality of care, supporting urgent efforts to improve patient outcomes for this poor prognosis of 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.