ArticleNeuro-ophthalmology (Aeolus Press)2013
The Urgency of Neuroimaging Among UK Neuro-Ophthalmologists: Consensus and Disagreement.
Article in Neuro-ophthalmology (Aeolus Press), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The timing of imaging in neuro-ophthalmology is critical. There are few published studies, however, that address the question of how urgently to request imaging for neuro-ophthalmic clinical scenarios. We therefore conducted a national survey of expert opinion on the urgency of neuroimaging in neuro-ophthalmology. We devised a list of 40 clinical scenarios, reflecting a wide range of neuro-ophthalmic presentations. For each scenario, respondents were asked to state how urgently they would obtain neuroimaging in day-to-day NHS (National Health Service) practice. There were five response options: "Emergency" (i.e., within 1 d), "Urgent" (i.e., within 1 week), "Semi-urgent" (i.e., within 1 month), "Observation" (only if not resolving after a period of observation [greater than 1 month]), and "Not normally scanned unless new features appear." Respondents were recruited by e-mailing individuals who were on the UKNOSIG (UK Neuro-Ophthalmology Special Interest Group) mailing list. All were Consultant Ophthalmologists or Neurologists specialising in neuro-ophthalmology. Consensus was set at an a priori level of 80% agreement. Only 17 out of 40 scenarios met the criterion for consensus. Nine of these were for emergency/urgent imaging, three were for not imaging, and five were for semi-urgent imaging. For the remaining 23 scenarios, consensus was not reached. Unanimity (100% agreement) was not reached for any scenario. Agreement between neuro-ophthalmologists on the urgency of neuroimaging is patchy, with consensus for some clinical scenarios and disagreement for many. There is a need for a prospective study of neuroimaging in neuro-ophthalmology to determine whether timing of imaging influences outcomes.
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.