BackgroundDiagnosis and treatment for individuals with brain tumors during childhood involves sequelae, including abnormal weight gain. This symptom is commonly clustered with fatigue and increased risk for cardiovascular disease. Children's Oncology Group recommendations include annual surveillance of body mass index (BMI) and cardiometabolic comorbidities; however, there has been little emphasis on individualized screening early in survivorship.PurposeThe primary purpose of this paper is to describe the findings of abnormal weight gain and its correlates in a sample of young childhood brain tumor survivors during early survivorship.Design and MethodsThis cross‐sectional multi‐site study included brain tumor survivors of ages 8–12 years who were less than 6 years posttreatment. Convenience sampling from two pediatric cancer centers in the southern United States was utilized. Data collected included BMI, parent report of sleep, and child report of fatigue and stress.ResultsThe sample (N = 21) consisted of children who had received chemotherapy, radiation treatment, and surgery for childhood brain tumor. BMI in overweight and obese categories exceeded normative samples with 38% at or above the 85th percentile. There were clinically significant relationships with fatigue, stress about weight, tumor location, cranial radiation, chemotherapy, and recurrencePractice ImplicationsScreening for abnormal weight gain and related factors, such as fatigue should begin early in survivorship after childhood brain tumor treatment completion with the aim of health promotion and disease prevention. Adiposity measurement techniques should be utilized in future clinical and research settings to improve assessment of cardiometabolic risk.

Background: There are multiple issues that arise when researchers focus on and only report "statistical significance" of study findings. An important element that is often not included in reports is a discussion of clinical relevance. Objectives:The authors address issues related to significance, the use of effect sizes, confidence or credible intervals, and the inclusion of clinical relevance in reports of research findings.Methods: Measures of magnitude, precision, and relevance such as effect sizes, confidence intervals (CIs), and clinically relevant effects are described in detail. In addition, recommendations for reporting and evaluating effect sizes and CIs are included. Example scenarios are presented to illustrate the interplay of statistical significance and clinical relevance.Results: There are several issues that may arise when significance is the focus of clinical research reporting. One issue is the lack of attention to nonsignificant findings in published works although findings show clinical relevance. Another issue is that significance is interpreted as clinical relevance. As well, clinically relevant results from small-sample studies are often not considered for publication, and thus, findings might not be available for meta-analysis.Discussion: Findings in research reports should address effect sizes and clinical relevance and significance. Failure to publish clinically relevant effects and CIs may preclude the inclusion of clinically relevant studies in systematic reviews and metaanalyses, thereby limiting the advancement of evidence-based practice. Several accessible resources for researchers to generate, report, and evaluate measures of magnitude, precision, and relevance are included in this article.