ArticleNeuro-oncology practice2025
Clinical outcome assessment trends in neuro-oncology trials.
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 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.
- Advancing the role of clinical outcome assessments in neuro-oncology trials.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Incorporating Clinical Outcome Assessments (COAs) in oncology trials is essential for evaluating therapeutic benefits and balancing survival with quality of life and symptom management. Understanding COA adoption trends and gaps is especially critical in neuro-oncology due to the complex symptom profiles of neuro-oncology patients. Methods: We reviewed neuro-oncology trials in ClinicalTrials.gov, identifying COA instruments using the PROQOLID database. We analyzed trends in COA usage, associations with trial characteristics, and the impact of key regulatory and advocacy efforts using correlation and regression analyses. Results: Of 1,874 adult interventional neuro-oncology trials with sufficient data, 85% were early-phase, 91% treatment-focused, primarily studying glioblastomas (61%), and unspecified gliomas (42%); 16% used COAs, with 127 distinct instruments reported; of these trials, 71% used Patient Reported Outcomes, 46% used Clinician-Reported Outcomes, with other categories of COAs used by fewer than 12% of the trials. COA use was more likely in later-phase trials (OR = 1.38, Conclusions: Our computational assessment highlights low but increasing COA adoption in neuro-oncology trials, mirroring broader oncology trends and reflecting a cumulative impact of regulatory and advocacy efforts. Priority areas for improvement include early-phase trials, FDA-approved interventions, and treatment-focused studies. Our findings emphasize the need for COA-specific reporting improvements and greater standardization in neuro-oncology research.
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.