ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2019
Characteristic Ocular Features in Cases of Autosomal Recessive PROM1 Cone-Rod Dystrophy.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Near-Infrared Autofluorescence: Early Detection of Retinal Pigment Epithelial Alterations in Inherited Retinal Dystrophies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Clinical Phenotypes ofGenes · 2022Article
- Article
- Electrophysiological and Pupillometric Abnormalities in PROM1 Cone-Rod Dystrophy.Translational vision science & technology · 2020Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To define characteristic ocular features in a group of patients with autosomal recessive (AR) PROM1 cone-rod dystrophy (CRD). Methods: Three males and one female from three unrelated families were first seen at the ages of 15 to 22 years and diagnosed with CRD. Clinical testing available for review included full-field electroretinogram (ERG) in three patients, as well as near-infrared autofluorescence (NIR-AF), spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT), and color fundus photography in all four patients. Whole exome sequencing (WES) was performed on all cases, and whole genome sequencing (WGS) was performed in two families. Results: WES found compound heterozygous PROM1 variants in one isolated male, plus heterozygous variants in the remaining patients. WGS uncovered deleterious PROM1 variants in these two families. ERG showed markedly reduced cone-isolated amplitudes and variably reduced rod-isolated amplitudes. The dark-adapted combined rod and cone responses demonstrated notably reduced a-wave amplitudes and moderately reduced b-waves, and the resultant waveform resembled the normal rod-isolated response. On fundus examination, oval-shaped macular lesions were observed, as were several small, circular hypoautofluorescent lesions within the posterior pole on NIR-AF. Three patients showed extramacular circular atrophic lesions. Conclusions: The autofluorescence changes, peripheral retinal abnormalities, and ERG findings have not been emphasized in previous reports of AR PROM1, but they became a recognizable phenotype in this cohort of patients. A similar constellation of findings may be observed in CRD due to CDHR1, a functionally related gene. The pattern of abnormalities reported herein may help to focus genetic screening in patients with these findings.
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.