ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2025
Priority setting for supportive care research in children and young people with cancer.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionSupportive care for children and young people (CYP) with cancer describes services intended to manage the adverse effects of cancer and its treatments. We aimed to identify priorities for future supportive care research according to key stakeholders in order to enable researchers and research funders to target these areas.
methodsNineteen unanswered supportive care research questions were identified from four more general CYP cancer priority setting partnerships. Over a 6-month period, five different priority setting activities were held, involving children and young people, their families, healthcare professionals, researchers, funders and the public. At each event, participants were asked to prioritise the questions in different ways.
resultsDifferent stakeholder groups identified different priorities. For CYP being able to "live a normal life doing normal things" seemed particularly important. Professionals had a strong focus on infection prevention and management. Similarities were also identified, with management of pain, mental wellbeing, and gastrointestinal side effects (nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, constipation, and mucositis) scoring highly for all groups.
conclusionUsing a range of different priority setting approaches with key stakeholders facilitated engagement with a wide audience, and resulted in rich information relating to supportive care priorities for CYP with cancer. These priorities should inform the development, funding, and performance of future work.
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.