ArticleArchives of disease in childhood2026
Assessing and investigating children with suspected soft tissue sarcomas: an e-Delphi consensus process.
Article in Archives of disease in childhood, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe clinical presentation of childhood soft tissue sarcoma (STS) creates a diagnostic challenge; however, time to diagnosis is significantly associated with survival. This Delphi consensus process aims to contribute to the development of clinical guidelines for healthcare professionals (HCPs) assessing children and young people presenting with signs/symptoms suggestive of STS.
methodsInvitation emails were sent to HCPs to join the Delphi panel. 48 statements were derived from an evidence review by a multidisciplinary team. Participants ranked their level of agreement with each statement on a 9-point Likert scale (1=strongly agree, 9=strongly disagree), with responses ≥7 indicating agreement. Statements not reaching consensus were rewritten and reissued in a subsequent round.
resultsIn round 1 (R1), 87/117 (74%) participants responded and 68/87 (78%) completed round 2 (R2).In R1, 47/48 (98%) statements achieved consensus, with 16/48 (33%) gaining more than 90% consensus. One statement did not reach consensus, with 26/87 (29%) scoring <7. All statements reached numerical consensus at the end of R2.There was strong consensus for urgent referral and investigations in cases with strong clinical suspicion, urgent discussion with secondary care if clinical uncertainty exists, increasing HCP education and institutional support to overcome potential barriers to timely diagnosis. Dissent was due to logistical and systematic barriers and a concern for misinterpretation if intended setting is not clearly specified.
conclusionsThese statements will be included in a clinical guideline for suspected STS for use in both primary and secondary care and translated into public awareness tools as part of the Child Cancer Smart national awareness campaign.
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.