ReviewCurrent opinion in neurology2019
Diagnostic error and neuro-ophthalmology.
Review in Current opinion in neurology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic accuracy of ophthalmology residents in emergency department consultations: trends and potential implications for training.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Neuro-Ophthalmology for Optic Disc Pathologies and Neurodegenerative Disease.Eye and brain · 2026Review
- Evaluating the diagnostic reasoning of large language models in complex neuro-ophthalmological cases: a comparative analysis of GPT-o1 Pro, GPT-4o, Gemini, Grok 2 and DeepSeek.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Error in Neuro-ophthalmology: Avenues to Improve.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2022Review
- Bilateral calcification of the optic nerve sheath: A diagnostic dilemma.American journal of ophthalmology case reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewThis review summarizes the recent literature on diagnostic error relevant to the practice of neuro-ophthalmology, and evaluates the potential for increased access to neuro-ophthalmology to decrease rates of diagnostic error, thereby reducing medical harm and spending on unnecessary tests and treatments. RECENT
findingsDespite medical advances, current research continues to show alarmingly high rates of diagnostic error. Research into diagnostic error shows that many of these errors can be traced to cognitive errors. Recent studies on diagnostic problems relevant to neuro-ophthalmology, including studies of misdiagnosis of posterior communicating artery aneurysms, idiopathic intracranial hypertension, optic neuritis, and optic nerve sheath meningiomas, have identified major causes of diagnostic error in these conditions. SUMMARY: Studies on diagnostic error in neuro-ophthalmologic conditions show that prior to evaluation by a neuro-ophthalmologist, patients may undergo unnecessary tests and treatments that are costly and potentially harmful. Further research on diagnostic error will inform better utilization of neuro-ophthalmologists as a resource to decrease diagnostic error.
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.