Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29332130›Full record

ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2018

Cerebrospinal Fluid Pressure: Revisiting Factors Influencing Optic Nerve Head Biomechanics.

Yi Hua, Andrew P Voorhees, Ian A Sigal

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed
8.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yi HuaDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States.
Andrew P VoorheesDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States.
Ian A SigalDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States.
University of Pittsburgh · US

Funding

Virus Production and Manipulation of Protein/Gene Expression ModuleP30EY008098 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI Ethan A Rossi · 1989 to 2026
$17.8M
Optic nerve head microstructure, biomechanics and susceptibility to glaucomaR01EY023966 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI Ian A Sigal · 2014 to 2026
$3.8M
Interdisciplinary Visual Sciences (IVS) Traininig ProgramT32EY017271 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI Marlene Behrmann, Paul R. Kinchington · 2008 to 2026
$3.6M
Interplay between intraocular and cerebrospinal fluid pressure effects on the optic nerve head in vivoR01EY025011 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI SIGAL, IAN A, WOLLSTEIN, GADI · 2015 to 2018
$1.5M
NEI NIH HHS P30 EY008098NEI NIH HHS R01 EY023966NEI NIH HHS R01 EY025011NEI NIH HHS T32 EY017271
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To model the sensitivity of the optic nerve head (ONH) biomechanical environment to acute variations in IOP, cerebrospinal fluid pressure (CSFP), and central retinal artery blood pressure (BP). Methods: We extended a previously published numerical model of the ONH to include 24 factors representing tissue anatomy and mechanical properties, all three pressures, and constraints on the optic nerve (CON). A total of 8340 models were studied to predict factor influences on 98 responses in a two-step process: a fractional factorial screening analysis to identify the 16 most influential factors, followed by a response surface methodology to predict factor effects in detail. Results: The six most influential factors were, in order: IOP, CON, moduli of the sclera, lamina cribrosa (LC) and dura, and CSFP. IOP and CSFP affected different aspects of ONH biomechanics. The strongest influence of CSFP, more than twice that of IOP, was on the rotation of the peripapillary sclera. CSFP had similar influence on LC stretch and compression to moduli of sclera and LC. On some ONHs, CSFP caused large retrolamina deformations and subarachnoid expansion. CON had a strong influence on LC displacement. BP overall influence was 633 times smaller than that of IOP. Conclusions: Models predict that IOP and CSFP are the top and sixth most influential factors on ONH biomechanics. Different IOP and CSFP effects suggest that translaminar pressure difference may not be a good parameter to predict biomechanics-related glaucomatous neuropathy. CON may drastically affect the responses relating to gross ONH geometry and should be determined experimentally.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationModels, BiologicalBiomechanical PhenomenaCerebrospinal Fluid PressureFinite Element AnalysisGlaucomaHumansIntraocular PressureOptic DiskOptic Nerve Diseases

Identifiers

PMID29332130
PMCPMC5769499
OpenAlexW2782831846

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.