Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25113867›Full record

ArticleDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2014

[Current recommendations on optic neuritis].

F Beisse, C Beisse, W A Lagrèze, K Rüther, U Schiefer, H Wilhelm

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2014. 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
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 46% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

F BeisseUniversitäts-Augenklinik, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland, flemming.beisse@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
C Beisse
W A Lagrèze
K Rüther
U Schiefer
H Wilhelm
Augenklinik Heidelberg · DEAlacris (Germany) · DEHochschule Aalen · DEOphthalmology Clinic · DEUniversitäts-Augenklinik Bonn · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe diagnostics and therapy of optic neuritis are complex and require interdisciplinary cooperation.

aimCompact, up-to-date recommendations for the clinician appear to be desirable. MATERIAL AND

methodsA selective literature search including the authors' professional experience was carried out. An algorithm for the practical approach to optic neuritis was derived from the best available evidence.

resultsOur recommendation distinguishes between compulsory and optional investigations. Differential diagnostic cues with regard to atypical optic neuritis and other optic neuropathies are shown. Standard therapy patterns and means of escalation are suggested. Indications for referral are presented.

conclusionThe algorithm suggested in this article provides ophthalmologists with an effective orientation aid for the complete treatment procedure of optic neuritis.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicHumansMultiple SclerosisNeurologyOphthalmologyOptic Neuritis

Identifiers

PMID25113867
OpenAlexW178940872

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.