Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23467031›Full record

ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2013

Opening up the window into "chemobrain": a neuroimaging review.

Carole S Scherling, Andra Smith

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Brain fog in central disorders of hypersomnolence: a review.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

2 authors.

Carole S ScherlingMemory and Aging Center, Neurology, UCSF, Sandler Neuroscience Center, 675 Nelson Rising Lane, San Francisco, CA 94158, USA. cscherling@memory.ucsf.edu
Andra Smith

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As more chemotherapy-treated cancer patients are reaching survivorship, side-effects such as cognitive impairment warrant research attention. The advent of neuroimaging has helped uncover a neural basis for these deficits. This paper offers a review of neuroimaging investigations in chemotherapy-treated adult cancer patients, discussing the benefits and limitations of each technique and study design. Additionally, despite the assumption given by the chemobrain label that chemotherapy is the only causative agent of these deficits, other factors will be considered. Suggestions are made on how to more comprehensively study these cognitive changes using imaging techniques, thereby promoting generalizability of the results to clinical applications. Continued investigations may yield better long-term quality of life outcomes by supporting patients' self-reports, and revealing brain regions being affected by chemotherapy.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingBrainCognition DisordersHumansNeoplasmsNeuroimagingQuality of LifeRadiography

Identifiers

PMID23467031
PMCPMC3658739

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.