ReviewNeuro-oncology practice2025
Brain tumors and fitness to drive: A review and multi-disciplinary approach.
Review in Neuro-oncology practice, 2025. 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.
- Postoperative Seizure Prophylaxis in Intracranial Tumors: Evaluating the Role of Anti-Seizure Medication in Seizure-Naïve Patients.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2026Review
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Patients with brain tumors and their families often inquire about driving safety. Currently, there is no consensus regarding fitness-to-drive (FTD) for patients with central nervous system tumors. Our paper aims to provide a multi-disciplinary perspective to address this issue. Methods: We performed a literature review for brain tumors and driving. Additionally, we solicited input from experts in tumor-related epilepsy, ophthalmology, neuropsychology, occupational therapy, and driving simulators. Results: We qualitatively analyzed 14 published articles. FTD determination varies internationally and regionally in most developed nations. Significant motor weakness and major cognitive impairment clearly prevent patients from driving. There are specialized tests for motor, vision, and cognitive correlates important to driving, but driving simulators and on-the-road tests provide the most comprehensive assessments. FTD for patients with seizures is dependent on region-specific laws that take into account the duration of seizure-free intervals and history of motor vehicular crashes. Conclusions: We recommend a symptom-based approach that highlights the importance of interdisciplinary assessment to ensure that brain tumor patients have the minimum operational skills required to drive. It is crucial to document seizure control, visual acuity impairment, and visual field deficits because these factors usually become the default basis in practice to determine if driving privileges can be maintained. Appropriately, timed assessment of cognitive function may provide pertinent information to determine FTD. Formalized testing with practical driving evaluation may eventually be necessary in patients who have hemiparesis, hemiplegia, hemineglect, homonymous visual field loss, or any form of cognitive dysfunction to determine FTD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.