ReviewCurrent opinion in neurology2016
The confused oncologic patient: a rational clinical approach.
Review in Current opinion in neurology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Symptom-guided approach to central nervous system complications in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients: Best practice recommendations from the EBMT Practice Harmonisation and Guidelines committee.Bone marrow transplantation · 2026Guideline
- Management of immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated toxicities in older adults with cancer: recommendations from the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG).The Lancet. Oncology · 2025Guideline
- Article
- Review
- Paraneoplastic neuronal intermediate filament presenting as encephalopathy and myoclonus: a case report and literature review.Journal of neurology · 2022Review
- A 5-Fluorouracil-Induced Hyperammonemic Encephalopathy Challenged with Capecitabine.Case reports in oncological medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewThe purpose of this review is to provide a practical clinical approach to confusion in the patient with cancer. Confusion in the cancer population has a broader differential diagnosis than in the general medical population. The clinician must consider the usual differential diagnoses as well as causes unique to the cancer patient including direct complications from the cancer and indirect complications related to cancer treatment. RECENT
findingsIn the recent age of precision medicine, the oncologist now utilizes the genomic profile of both the patient and the tumor to provide advanced biologic therapies including targeted anticancer drugs, antiangiogenic agents, and immunotherapy. Such advances carry with them an emerging pattern of neurotoxicity which, although less well described in the literature, is now an important consideration to the clinical approach to confusion in cancer patients. SUMMARY: Confusion is the most common neurologic complication in cancer and is associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and prolonged hospital stays resulting in increased healthcare costs. Early recognition and treatment of delirium is essential to improve clinical outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.