ArticleNeuro-oncology practice2026
Patient perspectives on diagnostic uncertainty and novel diagnostic tests in neuro-oncology.
Article in Neuro-oncology practice, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In the follow-up of glioma patients, differentiating treatment-associated changes from tumor progression on MRI is challenging. In the Netherlands, this diagnostic uncertainty often leads to watchful waiting, delayed treatment, and patient distress. So far, research on new diagnostic tests has primarily focused on accuracy, while patient perspectives remain largely unexplored. This qualitative study aimed to explore glioma patients' perspectives on diagnostic uncertainty and the implementation of tests aimed at reducing uncertainty. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 diffuse glioma patients (31-70 years old; 50% female) treated at UMC Utrecht, the Netherlands. Two independent coders analyzed interview transcripts thematically to identify key themes in patient perspectives. Results: Four themes were found: (1) Most patients experienced diagnostic uncertainty, which was stressful for themselves and their loved ones. (2) A new test was considered meaningful if it provided early certainty. Patients wanted certainty to guide treatment, and even without therapeutic options, a certain diagnosis could optimize quality of life by living more consciously. (3) All patients wished to participate in decision-making regarding undergoing new tests, with variable preferences regarding the amount of information to be received. (4) Patients expressed the need for continuity of care, honest communication, and immediate disclosure of test results. Conclusion: Patients value faster certainty from new diagnostic tests, both to guide treatment for improved survival and quality of life and to optimize quality of life when no therapeutic options remain. Integrating this emphasis on quality of life into diagnostic research may stimulate patient-centered test implementation, ultimately improving neuro-oncological care.
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.