Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42626253›Full record

ReviewCureus2026

Lucidity: Differences in Perspective.

Sarah Joy Gallardo, Eli Rudnisky, Robert J Coni

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Sarah Joy GallardoOffice of Research and Sponsored Programs, Burrell College of Osteopathic Medicine, Melbourne, USA.
Eli RudniskyDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Burrell College of Osteopathic Medicine, Melbourne, USA.
Robert J ConiDepartment of Preclinical Medicine, Burrell College of Osteopathic Medicine, Melbourne, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The phenomenon of lucidity refers to transient episodes of cognitive clarity in individuals with advanced and irreversible neurological impairment, typically coupled with late-stage illness. Although there have been strides spanning the course of decades to understand what a lucid episode (LE) truly entails, research regarding this topic remains in its infantile stages. Using a hybrid narrative-systematic-based literature approach, this review aims to review the existing body of literature and provide between-group qualitative comparisons of LEs from family members and healthcare workers to identify shared characteristics, observer-related differences, and potential predictors of lucidity. A variety of sources were vetted for inclusion, including interviews, surveys, case reports, and observational analyses in patients with severe neurological diseases. Between-group similarities included the characterization and duration of LEs, while notable differences included potential triggers and the emotional appraisal of these episodes. Limitations of the study, such as heterogenous definitions, retrospective reporting, various forms of bias, inconsistent assessment tools, and the absence of neurobiological measures, appear to be reflective of the early stages of research regarding lucidity. Therefore, future research should prioritize conceptual refinement through a standardized definition and exclusion criteria, prospective study designs, and the integration of physiological and neurological monitoring in this patient population. The improved recognition and understanding of lucidity may enhance clinician education, caregiver guidance, and ethical decision-making in palliative and hospice care settings.

Indexed as

caregiver awarenesscognitive impairment and dementiaend-of-life and hospice careparadoxical lucidityphysician awarenessterminal lucidity

Identifiers

PMID42626253
PMCPMC13492174

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.