Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28539768›Full record

ArticleEye and brain2010

New developments in the treatment of optic neuritis.

Thomas M Jenkins, Ahmed T Toosy

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Eye and brain, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 41% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Thomas M JenkinsDepartment of Neurology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, UK.
Ahmed T ToosyDepartment of Brain Repair and Rehabilitation, UCL Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.
Royal Hallamshire Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Acute optic neuritis (ON) has various etiologies. The most common presentation is inflammatory, demyelinating, idiopathic, or "typical" ON, which may be associated with multiple sclerosis. This must be differentiated from "atypical" causes of ON, which differ in their clinical presentation, natural history, management, and prognosis. Clinical "red flags" for an atypical cause of ON include absent or persistent pain, exudates and hemorrhages on fundoscopy, very severe, bilateral, or progressive visual loss, and failure to recover. In typical ON, steroids shorten the duration of the attack, but do not influence visual outcome. This is in contrast to atypical ON associated with conditions such as sarcoidosis and neuromyelitis optica, which require aggressive immunosuppression and sometimes plasma exchange. The visual prognosis of typical ON is generally good. The prognosis in atypical ON is more variable. New developments aimed at designing better treatments for patients who fail to recover are discussed, focusing on recent research elucidating mechanisms of damage and recovery in ON. Future therapeutic directions may include enhancing repair processes, such as remyelination or adaptive neuroplasticity, or alternative methods of immunomodulation. Pilot studies investigating the safety and proof-of-principle of stem cell treatment are currently underway.

Indexed as

multiple sclerosisneuromyelitis opticaneuroplasticityoptic neuritisstem cellssteroids

Identifiers

PMID28539768
PMCPMC5436165
OpenAlexW2061664435

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.