ReviewDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2009
[Clinical findings and diagnostics of cone dystrophy].
Review in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- A duplication on chromosome 16q12 affecting the IRXB gene cluster is associated with autosomal dominant cone dystrophy with early tritanopic color vision defect.Human molecular genetics · 2021Article
- [Progressive loss of vision in cone dystrophy. Search for evidence with macular OCT and multifocal ERG].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2019Article
- Long term follow-up of a family withInternational journal of ophthalmology · 2018Article
- Multimodal imaging of foveal cavitation in retinal dystrophies.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2017Article
- [Morphological characteristics in macular telangiectasia type 2].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2014Article
- Macular telangiectasia type 2.Progress in retinal and eye research · 2013Review
- [Cone dystrophy--of the significance of a minority of photoreceptors].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCone dystrophies present with highly variable clinical findings and often limited retinal changes, which may lead to misdiagnosis. The purpose of the present review of the clinical presentation and diagnosis of cone dystrophies is to provide guidelines for improved patient care.
methodsA literature search and evaluation of the clinical findings were carried out in 450 patients with cone dystrophy examined between 1986 and 2008.
resultsCharacteristic signs are loss of visual acuity, photophobia and central scotoma. The diagnosis of cone dystrophy is determined by a full-field electroretinogram (ERG). Fundus and near-infrared autofluorescence as well as optical coherence tomography allow detection of retinal structural abnormalities even when findings from ophthalmoscopy are normal.
conclusionThe diagnosis of cone dystrophy is difficult due to unspecific subjective symptoms and absence of characteristic ophthalmoscopic findings. The differential diagnosis of unexplained visual loss should include cone dystrophy and requires either a full-field or multifocal ERG.
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.