ArticleNeurology. Clinical practice2021
Inpatient vs Outpatient Evaluation of Suspected Paraneoplastic Cerebellar Degeneration.
Article in Neurology. Clinical practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Erratum: Inpatient vs Outpatient Evaluation of Suspected Paraneoplastic Cerebellar Degeneration.Neurology. Clinical practice · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the differences in outcomes of adult patients with ataxia initially evaluated for paraneoplastic cerebellar degeneration (PCD) as inpatients or outpatients.
methodsIn this retrospective cohort analysis, diagnosis, workup, and functional outcomes based on the change in the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score were compared between patients with ataxia who underwent workup for PCD initially as inpatients vs outpatients between March 2011 and June 2018 at Rush University Medical Center.
resultsThere were 78 patients included in the analysis; 59% were women, and the average age at symptom onset was 57 ± 19.5 years. Nineteen patients (24.3%) underwent evaluation as inpatients and 59 (75.6%) as outpatients. Admitted patients were more likely to receive immunotherapy (73.7% vs 20.3%,
conclusionsMore patients improved from baseline in the inpatient cohort. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class III evidence that for patients undergoing initial evaluation for PCD, patients undergoing inpatient evaluation have better outcomes compared with those undergoing outpatient evaluation.
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.