Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28192385›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuro-ophthalmology : the official journal of the North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society2017

Ganglion Cell Complex Loss in Chiasmal Compression by Brain Tumors.

Marisa G Tieger, Thomas R Hedges, Joseph Ho, Natalie K Erlich-Malona, Laurel N Vuong, Geetha K Athappilly, Carlos E Mendoza-Santiesteban

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuro-ophthalmology : the official journal of the North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

67 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Marisa G TiegerNew England Eye Center (MG, TRH, JH, NE, LNV, GKA, CEM), Tufts Medical Center, School of Medicine, Tufts University, Boston, MassachusettsDysautonomia Center (CEM), NYU Langone Medical Center, Schools of Medicine, New York University, New York, New York.
Thomas R Hedges
Joseph Ho
Natalie K Erlich-Malona
Laurel N Vuong
Geetha K Athappilly
Carlos E Mendoza-Santiesteban

Funding

Tufts Clinical and Translational Research InstituteUL1TR001064 · NCATS · TUFTS UNIVERSITY BOSTON · PI SELKER, HARRY P. · 2013 to 2017
$26.4M
Novel Glaucoma Diagnostics for Structure and Function - Renewal - 1R01EY013178 · NEI · WILLS EYE HEALTH SYSTEM · PI Joel S Schuman · 2000 to 2026
$17.5M
Advanced Imaging for GlaucomaR01EY013516 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI HUANG, DAVID · 2003 to 2012
$15.9M
Novel Optical Diagnostics with Optical Coherence TomographyR01EY011289 · NEI · MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI JAMES G FUJIMOTO · 1995 to 2026
$9.5M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001064NEI NIH HHS R01 EY013178NEI NIH HHS R01 EY013516
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatterns of ganglion cell complex (GCC) loss detected by optical coherence tomography provide an objective measure of optic nerve injury. These patterns aid in early diagnosis and localization of chiasmal lesions.

methodsTwenty-three patients with chiasmal compression seen between 2010 and 2015 were imaged with the Cirrus high-definition optical coherence tomography macular cube 512 × 128, retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) scan protocols and automated (30-2 Humphrey) visual fields (VFs). Age-matched controls were included for comparison. Generalized estimating equations were performed comparing RNFL and GCC thicknesses between patients and their controls. Effect size (d) was calculated to assess the magnitude of difference between patients and controls. The average GCC and RNFL thicknesses also were correlated with VF mean deviation (MD). Pre operative average GCC thickness was correlated to post operative VF MD.

resultsPatterns of GCC thinning corresponded to VF defects. The average GCC thickness was 67 ± 9 μm in patients and 86 ± 5 μm in controls (P < 0.001). The effect size was the greatest for GCC thickness (d = 2.72). The mean deviation was better correlated with GCC thickness (r =0.25) than RNFL thicknesses (r =0.15). Postoperatively, VF MD improved in 7 of 8 patients with persistent nasal GCC thinning. Six patients had no VF defect and showed statistically significant loss of GCC compared with controls (P = 0.001).

conclusionsDistinct patterns of GCC loss were identified in patients with chiasmal compression. Binasal GCC loss was typical and could be seen with minimal or no detectable VF loss. Thinning of the GCC may be detected before loss of the RNFL in some patients. After decompression, the majority of patients showed improvement in VF despite persistent GCC loss. Patients with less GCC loss before decompression had better postoperative VFs. Therefore, GCC analysis may be an objective method to diagnose and follow patients with chiasmal lesions.

Indexed as

Visual FieldsBrain NeoplasmsCase-Control StudiesDecompression, SurgicalFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedNerve Compression SyndromesNerve FibersOptic ChiasmRetinal Ganglion CellsRetrospective StudiesTomography, Optical Coherence

Identifiers

PMID28192385
PMCPMC6033516

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.