Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22528522›Full record

ReviewCurrent atherosclerosis reports2012

Intracranial hemorrhage in patients with cancer.

Alan J Velander, Lisa M DeAngelis, Babak B Navi

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current atherosclerosis reports, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Patients with Invasive Tumors andAsian journal of neurosurgery · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Alan J VelanderDivision of Stroke and Critical Care, Department of Neurology and Neuroscience, New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia, NY 10065, USA. alv9017@nyp.org
Lisa M DeAngelis
Babak B Navi

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is a common neurological emergency in patients with cancer, typically occurring late in the disease course, although it occasionally heralds the cancer diagnosis. ICH in these patients often occurs from unique mechanisms, especially intratumoral hemorrhage or coagulopathy, whereas hypertensive hemorrhage is rare. Lung, melanoma, breast, and glioblastoma multiforme are the most commonly associated solid tumors, partly because of their ubiquity and frequent brain involvement, whereas leukemia is the most commonly associated hematological cancer. Patients typically present with focal neurological deficits, headache, and encephalopathy, and their initial diagnostic evaluation and management should follow standard guidelines, although steroids and/or surgical resection should be strongly considered in those with intratumoral hemorrhage. Short-term outcomes are comparable to ICH in the community, whereas long-term outcomes are generally poor, corresponding to the prognosis of the underlying cancer. This review focuses on the recent advances and special considerations in cancer-related intracranial hemorrhage.

Indexed as

Blood Coagulation DisordersBrain NeoplasmsHumansIntracranial HemorrhagesNeoplasms

Identifiers

PMID22528522

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.