ReviewJNCI cancer spectrum2026
Assessment tools for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: a narrative review of clinician, patient-reported, and objective measures.
Review in JNCI cancer spectrum, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Touch and manual action in chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: a mixed-methods study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy associated with docetaxel or nab-paclitaxel among patients with lung cancer: a prospective dual-center cohort study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
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
backgroundChemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common side effect of chemotherapy, affecting motor, sensory, and autonomic function. Accurate assessment is important during treatment, when CIPN may necessitate dose reductions or discontinuation, and after treatment, as chronic CIPN can greatly impact quality of life and safety in cancer survivorship. Measurement tools can include subjective measures, including clinician-based grading scales or patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and objective measures. This review aimed to summarize current CIPN assessment tools, highlighting characteristics such as feasibility, minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs), validity and reliability to allow for comparison and selection of tools by clinicians and researchers.
methodsFollowing the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles methodology guidelines, 2 investigators performed a comprehensive literature search using predefined search terms relating to CIPN measurement. Additional papers were identified through a search of prior systematic reviews and tracing back references from key articles. Data were extracted from source papers and any available appendices.
resultsWe identified 3 clinician-based grading scales, 20 PROMs, and 8 objective measurement tools. While the majority of tools have been validated for neuropathy, a minority of them have established MCIDs and validation in CIPN-specific populations.
conclusionsTool selection should align with the specific needs of clinicians and researchers. Instruments that are valid, reliable, and assess multiple CIPN domains are recommended. Further research is needed to validate many of these tools in CIPN-specific populations and to determine their MCIDs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.