Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28585489›Full record

ArticleTechnology in cancer research & treatment2017

Evaluation of the Radiation Dose-Volume Effects of Optic Nerves and Chiasm by Psychophysical, Electrophysiologic Tests, and Optical Coherence Tomography in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma.

Ozlem Ozkaya Akagunduz, Suzan Guven Yilmaz, Deniz Yalman, Berna Yuce, Elif Demirkilinc Biler, Filiz Afrashi, Mustafa Esassolak

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Technology in cancer research & treatment, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Ophthalmic complications of radiotherapy.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ozlem Ozkaya AkagunduzEge University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Radiation Oncology, Izmir, Turkey.
Suzan Guven YilmazEge University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Ophthalmology, Izmir, Turkey.
Deniz YalmanEge University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Radiation Oncology, Izmir, Turkey.
Berna YuceTepecik Education and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey.
Elif Demirkilinc BilerEge University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Ophthalmology, Izmir, Turkey.
Filiz AfrashiEge University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Ophthalmology, Izmir, Turkey.
Mustafa EsassolakEge University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Radiation Oncology, Izmir, Turkey.
Ege University · TRIzmir Tepecik Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the radiation dose-volume effects of optic nerves and chiasm by visual psychophysical, electrophysiologic tests, and optical coherence tomography in patients with locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. MATERIALS AND

methodsA series of visual tests including visual acuity, visual field, contrast sensitivity, visual evoked potential, and optical coherence tomography were administered to 20 patients with locally advanced (T3-T4) nasopharyngeal carcinoma who were treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy. Volume that received 55 Gy (V

resultsOphthalmological evaluation revealed optic neuropathy with simultaneous retinopathy in 6 eyes of 4 patients and radiation retinopathy alone in both eyes of 1 patient. Regarding radiation dose-volume effects of the optic nerve, significant detrimental effect of all parameters was observed on visual acuity. Visual field and contrast sensitivity were affected significantly with V

conclusionThe volume receiving the threshold dose, mean dose, and 5% of the volume receiving the maximum dose are important parameters besides maximum dose to optic nerves and chiasm. A comprehensive ophthalmological evaluation including visual field, contrast sensitivity, visual evoked potential latency, and amplitude should be performed for these patients. Visual evoked potential latency is an objective predictor of vision loss before the onset of clinical signs.

Indexed as

anterior visual pathwayselectrophysiologic testsoptic nerves and chiasmradiation dose–volume effectsradiation optic neuropathy

Identifiers

PMID28585489
PMCPMC5762056
OpenAlexW2622550772

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.