ReviewOphthalmology and eye diseases2016
The Monocular Duke of Urbino.
Review in Ophthalmology and eye diseases, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Differential diagnosis of tophaceous gout and multiple facial papules in Federico da Montefeltro by Piero della Francesca (c. 1415 -1492).Rheumatology international · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Federico da Montefeltro (1422-1482), the Duke of Urbino, was a well-known historical figure during the Italian Renaissance. He is the subject of a famous painting by Piero della Francesca (1416-1492), which displays the Duke from the left and highlights his oddly shaped nose. The Duke is known to have lost his right eye due to an injury sustained during a jousting tournament, which is why the painting portrays him from the left. Some historians teach that the Duke subsequently underwent nasal surgery to remove tissue from the bridge of his nose in order to expand his visual field in an attempt to compensate for the lost eye. In theory, removal of a piece of the nose may have expanded the nasal visual field, especially the "eye motion visual field" that encompasses eye movements. In addition, removing part of the nose may have reduced some of the effects of ocular parallax. Finally, shifting of the visual egocenter may have occurred, although this seems likely unrelated to the proposed nasal surgery. Whether or not the Duke actually underwent the surgery cannot be proven, but it seems unlikely that this would have substantially improved his visual function.
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.