ArticleNeuro-oncology advances
Quality indicators for the care of children with CNS tumors: An international modified Delphi study.
Article in Neuro-oncology advances. 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.
- Exploring the landscape of targetable alterations in patients with glioblastoma.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
33 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pediatric central nervous system (CNS) tumors are the leading cause of cancer-related death among children and adolescents globally. Despite the complex and multidisciplinary care needed, there is limited evidence on standardized quality indicators (QIs) for pediatric neuro-oncology (PNO). Methods: A modified Delphi process was conducted to develop consensus-based QIs for PNO. Candidate indicators were identified through a systematic review of published literature. After expert screening, indicators were evaluated by a multidisciplinary panel through 2 rounds of Delphi surveys. Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement. A subsequent consensus meeting and tiering process were conducted to categorize the selected indicators. Results: The systematic review identified 35 studies containing 124 relevant indicators; these were subsequently refined to 63 candidate indicators for evaluation in 2 Delphi surveys. Thirty-two experts from 5 specialties and 15 countries participated in the consensus process. A consensus was established that included that indicators would have the following 3 characteristics: reflect the continuum of PNO care, be continuous variables, and be feasible to measure across diverse resource settings. Through 2 rounds of Delphi surveys, a total of 48 indicators met the consensus threshold. Indicators were subsequently consolidated to 31, following discussion and merging of overlapping items. Final indicators were categorized into 2 sets: 19 core indicators and 12 extended indicators. Conclusions: By providing a framework for evaluating quality across the continuum of PNO care, these indicators can aid benchmarking and guide quality improvement interventions. Prospective validation and assessment of their impact on patient outcomes are still needed.
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.