ArticleBMJ open2017
Impact of internal carotid endarterectomy on visual fields: a non-randomised prospective cohort study in Austria.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. 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.
- Cerebrovascular imaging of carotid embolization: Amaurosis fugax and transient ischemic attack in motion.Journal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe goal of this study was to determine whether internal carotid endarterectomy is associated with visual field changes.
methodsBetween March 2007 and December 2010, a cohort study involved 29 patients with stenosis of the carotid artery. All patients underwent ophthalmoscopy and kinetic visual field examination (Goldmann perimetry) preoperatively and postoperatively. Furthermore, a detailed area calculation was performed. On both the operated and the contralateral side, the areas surrounded by the different isopters (isopter areas) were determined and preoperative and postoperative values compared. The three isopters were classified from the centre to the periphery (I, II and III). Isopter area values are given as ratio compared with total perimetric circle. p Values <0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.
results1) The ophthalmologists assessment (paragraph is missing in the proof!)Eight of eleven patients with precarotid endarterectomy impairments experienced focal or concentric improvement. Six cases with preoperative concentric narrowing of the isopters returned to normal or improved substantially. Three out of 18 patients with normal preoperative visual field presented with deteriorations after surgery, two cases with ipsilateral and one with contralateral focal impairment. In 15 cases, there was no preoperative or postoperative abnormality.2) Area calculation (preoperative area, postoperative area, P) (paragraph is missing in the proof)Ipsilateral: isopter area I (0.015, 0.018, 0.131), isopter area II (0.107, 0.120, 0.087), isopter area III (0.392, 0.425, 0.015)Contralateral: isopter area I (0.017, 0.021, 0.222), isopter area II (0.119, 0.125, 0.333), isopter area III (0.416, 0.434, 0.171)
conclusionsWe found a statistically significant extension of the ipsilateral peripheral isopter area (III). Further studies will focus on the question which subgroup is most likely to profit from internal carotid endarterectomy with respect to visual field changes.
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.