The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Systematic Review of Interventions to Improve the Provision of Information for Adults with Primary Brain Tumors and Their Caregivers
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Adults with primary brain tumors and their caregivers have significant information needs. This review assessed the effect of interventions to improve information provision for adult primary brain tumor patients and/or their caregivers. METHODS: We included randomized or non-randomized trials testing educational interventions that had outcomes of information provision, knowledge, understanding, recall, or satisfaction with the intervention, for adults diagnosed with primary brain tumors and/or their family or caregivers. PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Reviews databases were searched for studies published between 1980 and June 2014. RESULTS: Two randomized controlled, 1 non-randomized controlled, and 10 single group pre-post trials enrolled more than 411 participants. Five group, four practice/process change, and four individual interventions assessed satisfaction (12 studies), knowledge (4 studies), and information provision (2 studies). Nine studies reported high rates of satisfaction. Three studies showed statistically significant improvements over time in knowledge and two showed greater information was provided to intervention than control group participants, although statistical testing was not performed. DISCUSSION: The trials assessed intermediate outcomes such as satisfaction, and only 4/13 reported on knowledge improvements. Few trials had a randomized controlled design and risk of bias was either evident or could not be assessed in most domains.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
For the European Huntington Disease Network, Weydt, P., Soyal, S. M., Landwehrmeyer, G. B., & Patsch, W. (2014) · BMC Neurology · doi:10.1186/1471-2377-14-1 · Cited by 206
Cited by
A review of the carcinogenic potential of bisphenol A
Seachrist, D. D., Bonk, K. W., Ho, S.-M., Prins, G. S., Soto, A. M., & Keri, R. A. (2016) · Reproductive Toxicology · doi:10.1016/j.reprotox.2015.09.006 · Cited by 490
Afewerki, S., Sheikhi, A., Kannan, S., Ahadian, S., & Khademhosseini, A. (2019) · Bioengineering & Translational Medicine · doi:10.1002/btm2.10124 · Cited by 409
Second- and third-generation drugs for immuno-oncology treatment—The more the better?
Dempke, W. C. M., Fenchel, K., Uciechowski, P., & Dale, S. P. (2017) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2017.01.001 · Cited by 257
The dark side of meaning-making: How social exclusion leads to superstitious thinking
Graeupner, D., & Coman, A. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2016.10.003 · Cited by 162
Proteinaceous Hydrogels for Bioengineering Advanced 3D Tumor Models
Blanco‐Fernandez, B., Gaspar, V. M., Engel, E., & Mano, J. F. (2021) · Advanced Science · doi:10.1002/advs.202003129 · Cited by 78
Metadata
- Authors
- Langbecker, D., & Janda, M.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Oncology
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2015-01-23
- Volume
- 5
- Pages
- 1-1
- ISSN
- 2234-943X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2069616255
- Cited by
- 228
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Systematic Review of Interventions to Improve the Provision of Information for Adults with Primary Brain Tumors and Their Caregivers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/fonc.2015.00001
- The paper
- Langbecker, D., & Janda, M. (2015). Systematic Review of Interventions to Improve the Provision of Information for Adults with Primary Brain Tumors and Their Caregivers. Frontiers in Oncology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2015.00001
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.