Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21694809›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic advances in neurological disorders2011

Clinical approach to optic neuritis: pitfalls, red flags and differential diagnosis.

Elke Voss, Peter Raab, Corinna Trebst, Martin Stangel

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 91 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review of atypical optic neuritis.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2025
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Vision loss in an immunocompetent child post varicella infection: A case report.Malaysian family physician : the official journal of the Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Association ofMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2018
    Article
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Elke VossHannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Peter Raab
Corinna Trebst
Martin Stangel
Medizinische Hochschule Hannover · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Demyelinating optic neuritis (ON) is the most common cause of optic neuropathy typically presenting with a subacute painful visual loss. In 20% of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), ON is the presenting symptom and half of the patients with isolated ON develop MS within 15 years. The diagnosis of ON plays an important role in neurological practice. A correct and early diagnosis is necessary to ensure optimal further investigations and treatment. Other causes of optic neuropathies such as connective tissue disorders, infectious diseases, tumours or ischaemic neuropathies are less frequent but clinical and therapeutic management can differ dramatically. We present five patients admitted to our hospital with suspected demyelinating ON, but the clinical work up revealed different causes of optic neuropathy. We discuss the differential diagnosis of ON and clinical red flags that require careful diagnostic assessment of other diseases. A workflow for the diagnosis of optic neuropathies is presented.

Indexed as

differential diagnosismultiple sclerosisoptic neuritis

Identifiers

PMID21694809
PMCPMC3105615
OpenAlexW2050191122

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.