ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2026
Methodology of analysis of cognitive impairment in longitudinal randomized clinical trials in oncology: a scoping review.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI) is a common consequence of cancer treatments. Longitudinal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are essential to evaluate cognitive outcomes over time, but methodological heterogeneity limits comparability. Accordingly, we systematically review cognition assessment in longitudinal oncology RCTs, focusing on study design, statistical methods, cognitive measures, and adherence to reporting guidelines.
methodsWe reviewed longitudinal RCTs published between 2010-2026 assessing cognition in adult cancer patients. Extracted data included sample size, assessment tools, statistical methods. Methodological quality of reporting was assessed using a subset of the CONSORT 2025 checklist.
resultsOne-hundred and thirteen studies were included. Trials involved 21% central nervous system (CNS) tumours and 50% of trials focused on breast cancer. Overall, 73% assessed the effects of interventions on cognition, and 27% the impact of cancer or its treatments. Cognition was a primary endpoint in 66% of trials. Objective measures predominated, but International Cognition and Cancer Task Force-recommended tests were underused, and heterogeneity in scoring was observed. The overall RCT median sample size was 81 participants (range: 8-867). Statistical methods varied and were not mutually exclusive: 11% used descriptive analyses only; 24% baseline-adjusted/paired regression; 57% repeated measures; 11% other models. Adherence to reporting guidelines was limited, particularly for missing data (26%) and analysis sample (22%).
conclusionLongitudinal cognitive assessments in oncology RCTs displayed heterogeneity in endpoints, tools, and statistical methods. Small sample sizes limit robustness of results. Future trials should prioritize primary cognitive objective, ensure adequate sample sizes, employ standardized cognitive assessments and appropriate statistical methods to enhance reproducibility and interpretability.
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.