ReviewBMJ open2026
Inconsistent reporting of adolescent and young adult (AYA) status in non-interventional cancer research: a critical barrier to evidence usability.
Review in BMJ open, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inconsistent reporting of age at cancer diagnosis limits the utility of non-interventional studies focused on adolescents and young adults (AYAs), defined by the National Cancer Institute as individuals diagnosed between ages 15 and 39. Standardised reporting is essential to synthesise evidence and develop targeted interventions to address this population's unique needs. While initiatives have emphasised reporting age at study enrolment in reporting results, there is a lack of guidance on specifying age at diagnosis-an essential detail for accurately identifying AYA status.To estimate the scope of this problem, we reviewed 734 non-interventional cancer studies published between 2018 and 2022 and found that 33% did not report age at diagnosis sufficiently to determine AYA inclusion, with no improvement over time. We recommend that future reporting guidelines explicitly require age-at-diagnosis metrics, including mean, median, range and count of participants diagnosed between ages 15 and 39, to improve data comparability of non-interventional AYA cancer research and accelerate targeted interventions. We further recommend that studies with mixed-age samples report outcomes stratified by AYA status wherever sample size permits.
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.