ReviewActa neurologica Belgica2024
Danger in plain sight: determining who is at highest risk for cefepime induced neurotoxicity and its associated morbidity and mortality.
Review in Acta neurologica Belgica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rethinking Cefepime Neurotoxicity: An Integrated PK-Neuromonitoring Approach for Neurocritical Care.Neurocritical care · 2026Article
- Triphasic waves: To treat or not to treat?Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cefepime is a fourth-generation cephalosporin that is widely used to treat sepsis but is associated with a potentially dangerous neurotoxicity syndrome, cefepime-induced neurotoxicity (CIN). As a result, patients treated with cefepime may be at higher risk for morbidity, including seizures, and mortality. Though the recent ACORN trial concluded that cefepime does not increase the risk of mortality, most of these patients were not critically ill or elderly, two of the most at risk populations for CIN. Further, diagnosis may be difficult in the critical care setting as patients may have multiple reasons for encephalopathy. Therefore, this population in particular should be studied and monitored closely for CIN. Importantly, there are not well defined diagnostic criteria for CIN to guide evaluation and management. Defining the risk factors for CIN and using laboratory and EEG to help support the clinical diagnosis could be helpful in early recognition of CIN to help institute treatment and to rule out seizures. In this mini review, we highlight risk factors for CIN, discuss the possible value of EEG, and propose a diagnostic and management approach in the evaluation and management of CIN.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38589733What 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.