Table A1.

Evidence and narrative quality appraisal.

No.	Study	Design	Principal limitation	Narrative evidence strength
1	Lee et al.	Consensus guidance	Foundational standardized grading; consensus-based rather than comparative effectiveness evidence	Moderate–high contextual authority
2	Fatahichegeni et al.	Review	Broad recent synthesis; dependent on included literature and review methods	Contextual review evidence
3	Ruff et al.	Focused review	Neurologist-oriented practical synthesis; not comparative	Contextual review evidence
4	Garfall et al.	Implementation review	Operationally useful outpatient roadmap; center/resource dependent	Consensus/implementation evidence
5	Bayly-McCredie et al.	Systematic review	Aggregates clinical trials; heterogeneity and trial-selection limitations	Systematic-review level
6	Fonseca et al.	Meta-analysis	Large aggregate safety context; trial heterogeneity and indirect workflow evidence	Meta-analysis level
7	Cook et al.	Meta-analysis	CNS lymphoma safety context; small heterogeneous cohorts	Meta-analysis with imprecision
8	He et al.	Clinical cohort/trial	Direct CNS-involved population; product- and setting-specific	Limited–moderate clinical evidence
9	Shalabi et al.	Prospective pediatric/AYA study	Detailed phenotype; limited generalizability to adults/products	Preliminary prospective evidence
10	Guo et al.	Pharmacovigilance study	Large real-world signal detection; reporting and denominator bias	Signal-generating observational evidence
11	Suresh et al.	Prospective pilot	Sensitive serial testing and predictive signal; small pilot requiring validation	Preliminary pilot evidence
12	Wesley et al.	Observational EEG series	Direct EEG characterization; selected treated population and small sample	Limited observational evidence
13	Gust et al.	Pediatric EEG study	Prospective physiologic correlations; pediatric/product-specific	Limited prospective evidence
14	Hernani et al.	Observational EEG study	Baseline association with severity; nonrandomized and modest sample	Limited observational evidence
15	Storci et al.	Biomarker study	Novel predictive candidate; requires external clinical validation	Exploratory biomarker evidence
16	Sweiss et al.	Real-world cohort	Exposure–toxicity association; confounding and product specificity	Moderate observational evidence
17	Abramson et al.	Phase 3 trial	Robust product safety context; workflow not primary endpoint	High product-context evidence
18	D’Souza et al.	Phase 1 trial	Direct early safety data; small, noncomparative dose-escalation study	Early-phase evidence
19	Mohan et al.	Real-world cohort	Multicenter practical safety context; retrospective confounding	Moderate observational evidence
20	Dima et al.	Real-world cohort	Academic-center experience; selection and retrospective limitations	Limited–moderate observational evidence
21	Lutfi et al.	Case-based report	Highlights rare severe refractory toxicity; cannot estimate incidence	Case-level safety signal
22	Kowalski et al.	Real-world prophylaxis cohort	Operationally relevant association; no randomized control	Limited–moderate observational evidence
23	Cohen et al.	CARTITUDE cohort analysis	Program-level delayed toxicity signal; product-specific	Moderate observational safety evidence
24	Schroeder et al.	Case report	Rare delayed phenotype; no generalizable frequency or causality	Case-report-level evidence
25	Khoudari et al.	Case report	Severe delayed safety signal; no incidence inference	Case-report-level evidence
26	Wirk and Lim	Case report	Therapeutically informative single observation; efficacy unproven	Case-report-level evidence only
27	Alqaisi et al.	Scoping review	Broad neurologic disease context; complementary rather than part of original 26	Scoping-review context