SynthesisJournal of neuro-oncology2024
A systematic review of the impact of brain tumours on risk of motor vehicle crashes.
Synthesis in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exercise Preferences, Barriers, Motivators, Facilitators, and Perceived Benefits in Adults With Brain Tumours-A Systematic Review.Cancer medicine · 2026Pooled it
- A Delphi study of current practices and establishing consensus regarding assessment of fitness to drive among patients with brain tumours.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Article
- Brain tumors and fitness to drive: A review and multi-disciplinary approach.Neuro-oncology practice · 2025Review
- Seizure outcomes as an understudied metric in glioma clinical trials: A review of the ClinicalTrials.gov database.Neuro-oncology advancesReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeBrain tumours are associated with neurocognitive impairments that are important for safe driving. Driving is vital to maintaining patient autonomy, despite this there is limited research on driving capacity amongst patients with brain tumours. The purpose of this review is to examine MVC risk in patients with brain tumours to inform development of clearer driving guidelines.
methodsA systematic review was performed using Medline and EMBASE. Observational studies were included. The outcome of interest was MVC or measured risk of MVC in patients with benign or malignant brain tumours. Descriptive analysis and synthesis without meta-analysis were used to summarise findings. A narrative review of driving guidelines from Australia, United Kingdom and Canada was completed.
resultsThree studies were included in this review. One cohort study, one cross-sectional study and one case-control study were included (19,135 participants) across United States and Finland. One study evaluated the incidence of MVC in brain tumour patients, revealing no difference in MVC rates. Two studies measured MVC risk using driving simulation and cognitive testing. Patients found at higher risk of MVC had greater degrees of memory and visual attention impairments. However, predictive patient and tumour characteristics of MVC risk were heterogeneous across studies. Overall, driving guidelines had clear recommendations on selected conditions like seizures but were vague surrounding neurocognitive deficits.
conclusionLimited data exists regarding driving behaviour and MVC incidence in brain tumour patients. Existing guidelines inadequately address neurocognitive complexities in this group. Future studies evaluating real-world data is required to inform development of more applicable driving guidelines. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO 2023 CRD42023434608.
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.